1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Li portas pantalonon."

"Li portas pantalonon."

Translation:He wears pants.

June 5, 2015



...thus begins the revolutionary cartoon based on a fictional marine sponge...

[deactivated user]

    Well that's polite of him. Apparently men in Denmark don't wear clothes at all.


    I should hope so. (unless he's wearing a kilt)


    Are these trousers or underpants?


    Li portas lian virpantalonon.


    He wear his (someone else's) man-pants?

    I think you meant “Li portas sian virpantolonon”, “he wears his own man-pants”


    From what I understand "pantanolo" refers to the whole pair of pants as one, is this correct?


    Yes - from the Tips and notes section: (available when using the web page!)


    Note that the word pantalono, which means "trousers" (UK) or "pants" (US), is singular in Esperanto. Thus pantalonoj refers to multiple pairs of trousers.


    And English they are allways plural Pant does make sense I'm wearing a pant


    How does one say "trouser leg" in Esperanto - "pantalonkruro"?

    (example: Imagine having to explain that you fell, because you stumbled when you got your foot stuck in one of the trouser's legs.)


    "krurumo" -- if you're feeling particularly silly, try "kruringo." :-)


    What is the base language for portas?


    According to the Universala Vortaro: [Esperanto français, English, Deutsch, русский, polski.]

    port' porter | pack, carry | tragen | носить | nosić.

    According to English Wiktionary:

    From Italian portare.

    ... and if you look up French porter, or Italian portare, both end up as originating from Latin portāre, present active infinitive of portō ‎(“bring, carry”) - so, I'd say

    "It's from Latin portō".


    Dankon. This made me wonder what to carry is, which happens to be porti as well, so aside from context how can it be known that an article of clothing is being worn as apposed to being carried?


    In Swedish (my native language), "(att) bära" can mean

    • to carry; to lift and transport anywhere else
    • to wear; e.g. a piece of clothing or jewelery

    among other things, and you understand from context which one it is.

    It actually seems to correspond rather well with the Italian portare
    (and when I looked it up, the Swedish word seems to be distantly related to what in English is called "burden", but that's just my speculations).


    So, in short, I guess we should be able to say something along the lines of
    "Li portas pupon, kaj lia pupo portas ĉemizon kaj pantalonon."
    and we have no idea of whether the doll wears the shirt-and-trousers, or carries the shirt-and-trousers (while we, or at least I, can assume that he's just carrying the doll). ;-)


    By using derrivatives of porti, you can be more specific. For example, 'surporti' only means 'to wear'. It literally means 'to carry on'.


    Aditionally to the already mentioned "surporti", you can also use "surhavi" to express "to wear" without the ambiguity of "porti", which can mean "to wear" or "to carry". Some recommend to avoid "porti", unless you actually mean "to carry" and to not use it in its "to wear" meaning.


    Some recommend to avoid "porti", unless you actually mean "to carry" and to not use it in its "to wear" meaning.

    Let's name names. Nobody worth listening to recommends this. Many languages - including Esperanto - do just fine with this so-called "ambiguity."

    Edit: I regret my choice of words above. It's possible to have deep respect for someone while disagreeing with them on a certain point. As reflected in the conversation below, I believe the person mentioned is mistaken - no matter how persistently she pushes this personal idea. When someone has a personal idea, they should present it as a personal idea - or people should not listen to them on that point.


    Let's name names.

    If I've understood her correctly (of which I'm not completely sure), Katalin Kováts teaches to use "surhavi" when one wants to express "wear" and to only use "porti" to express "carry". (Paraphrased, as the lesson in question was itself in Esperanto and used images of people wearing or carrying various pieces of clothing, so the corresponding English verbs weren't even mentioned.) I can try to check with her, whether I understood her correctly.

    I've also asked on https://esperantologio.telegramo.org/ where Robin stated, that, while "porti" can mean "to wear"

    [...] iuj preferas eviti tiun sencon, kaj uzas nur "surhavi"

    (Off course, that just means that these unidentified "some" themselves avoid it for that meaning. That some recommend to avoid it, was my interpretation given Katalin's teachings.)

    Many languages - including Esperanto - do just fine with this so-called "ambiguity."

    I certainly wasn't claiming they don't.

    But why do you call it a "so-called" ambiguity? What would be an example of a true ambiguity?


    I'm not sure who Robin is (and I can't open the link), but I knew when you said "some people" here that you meant Katalin. She's really the only one.

    Here's something Lee Miller posted int he facebook group on this very topic recently:

    One thing I want to emphasize in this thread, before it disappears in Facebook, is that "porti" is the original, standard term for both "to wear" and "to carry". "Surhavi" means "to have on."

    When you're talking about clothing, both "porti" and surhavi" are correct:

    • Hodiaŭ mi portas bluan ĉemizon.
    • Hodiaŭ mi surhavas bluan ĉemizon.

    Both "porti" and "surhavi" are broader in meaning than English "to wear". But both are correct, in context, for English "to wear".

    "Porti" does NOT only mean "to carry (i.e., something in your hand)." As I said earlier in this thread, the verb follows the French model of "porter". And very few French people have been confused during the past few centuries about whether they're carrying something, or wearing an article of clothing.

    Esperanto usage doesn't map directly onto English usage, and this is a great example of how the two languages differ.


    (By "Robin" above, I refer to Robin van der Vliet.)


    I sure hope he does!


    no más pantalones


    It's pant...singular....not plural. Pantalono = Pant, Pantalonon = Pant(as it's objective)

    If it was plural, shouldn't the word be 'pantalonojn'?


    Pants are generally pluralized in English, I believe, because of the two pant legs. We never call them pant, only pants.


    pantalono = (a pair of) trousers
    - as in the item "a pair of trousers"

    pantalonoj = several (pairs of) trousers


    I think you're getting downvotes because this is in the lesson notes.


    I love it when people post from the notes! My computer is slowly dying and can't handle the website. I'm sure I'm not alone in appreciating the repost!


    The information is out there. It's not that difficult to read ahead and have your questions answered.

    Borrow a book from the library. Many libraries have books about Esperanto, even if you have to use inter-library loan.

    Bring up a PDF of an Esperanto book on your phone or e-book reader.


    So do I. What a coincidence.


    Why does the pants have no singular? This confuses me!


    It sounds like he's saying "Ili", but with the first 'i' quickly. That threw me off...


    I keep wanting to say pantalonoj


    Adamo's finally pulling his life together


    For those wondering why "pants" is plural in English, even when referring to just one piece of clothing (a "pair of pants"): That is answered well here.

    Learn Esperanto in just 5 minutes a day. For free.