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" :\


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]


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 wrote "parkon" too


"al" (esperanto) means "to"


Learning Spanish at the same time, I think this will be a confusing sentence to me


Yeah, 'al la' is still kind of grating to the ears.

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