1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "We go to the park."

"We go to the park."

Translation:Ni iras al la parko.

June 6, 2015



I wonder, why is it "parko" and not "parkon"?


Think of it that we're not doing anything to the mentioned park.

You would use "parkon" if it's being affected by the verb- "mi kreas parkon", or "I create a park". "Mi neniigas parkon", "I destroy a park". "Mi vidas parkon", "I see a park".

But "mi iras for de la parko/mi foriras de la parko", "mi iras al la parko", "mi iras ĉirkaŭ la parko", etc. (I go away from the park, I go to the park, I go around the park) don't use "parkon". It's describing the verb in more detail, but it's not being affected by it- if that makes any sense.

Hopefully this clears some things up for you! ^^; I believe this is a dative example? I could be wrong on that.


I like how "to destroy" is neniigi (to nothingify). It just makes it seem so simple. [2019/03/29]


it seems like the object ending is not used in prepositional phrases, but only for direct objects.


Yes, but there is also something else. The akusative ending is used also to convey the idea of "movement to", like this:

in the park = en la parko into the park = en la parkon


I also put "parkon" :\


Mi konfermas ke "iri parkon" egalas je "iri al parko". Akuzativo kun la verbo "iri" esprimas la direkton. {Zamenhof: Fundamento de Esperanto}. Ankoraŭ eblus diri ""iri en parkon" kun simila signifo se oni havas intencon eniri la parkon. La akuzativo ŝanĝas la sencon de la frazo. Mi iras en parko > signifas: mi promenas interne de la parko. Kontraŭe: mi iras {en} parkon > signifas: mi iras al parko > parko estas celo de mia irado.


Yes, but not only with this verb. All verbs of movement. (I think this will be teach later).


I'm a little confused about if "parko" or "parkon" should be used here? I'm still very new to Esperanto but I thought that "parkon" would be correct if it was "We are going into the park" and "We go to the park" would use "parko"? I see here that some people used "parkon" in this sentence and got it marked wrong and I used "parko" and got it marked wrong as it should have been "parkon". Perhaps I missed something in my notes? Can anyone help me understand this?


The confusion stems from how both English and Esperanto express movement. Since Esperanto has a dedicated ending for the accusative (-n), the simplest way would be to just use that.

Ni iras la parkon.
We go to the park. (lit. 'We go the park.')

However, English uses a preposition for this, so this sentence wouldn't be very intuitive. People would be asking 'Wait, where's the "to"?', 'I don't see a "to"', et cetera, so an easier solution would be to include a preposition to make it more word-for-word.

Ni iras al la parko. (-n isn't added after al etc)
We go to the park.

So as far as I know both should be accepted. This template (subj. + iri + place) is repeated a lot throughout the course, though, and it seems like the al version is preferred.

Bit of a long reply, but hope you get the point. [2019/03/29]


is it also correct to say "al la parko ni iras"? if it isn't can you explain?


Word order matters in Esperanto and can change the meaning or emphasis of a sentence. Follow the model sentences to learn the best word order. Also keep in mind that your answer is being checked by a computer that can't possibly know all possible correct answers. Follow the model sentences.


so, the sentence is gramatically correct and conveys a similar meaning, but the emphasis is different i s what youre saying?


Yes its correct. Duolingo just isn't very good at reflecting the flexibility of word order in esperanto.


"al" (esperanto) means "to"


What if I say "iri en la parkon"? Is it also correct for one to say? In theory, it should mean the same as "iri al la parko", shouldn't it?


The difference between "to the park" and "in the park". First implies you are going towards the park, while the second infers you are already inside the park, going from one place to the other maybe. So it is not necessarily wrong, but has a different meaning.


Thanks for the reply, though I think you actually didn't answered my question. In the meanwhile I learned the difference beetween al and en + -n. In the case of al, the motion ends when you arrive to the park, so you don't have to be in it. In the case of en + -n, the motion ends only when you get into the park, ie you have to be in the park then.


Not quite. The difference between "al la parko" and "en la parkon" is the difference between "to the park" and "into the park". "In the park" would be "en la parko" in Esperanto.

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