"I do not know her, nor do I want to know her."

Translation:Mi ne konas ŝin, nek volas koni ŝin.

June 14, 2015

This discussion is locked.


why "Konas" and not "Scias"?


Scii is to know facts. You know physics, how to play with a ball, what color the sky is, etc.
Koni is to know a person, be aware of an idea, have a familiarity with a place, relate to an ambition. One konas a tree by its fruit. One scias only what one learns. etc.

You can koni something, but not scii it, and vice versa.


This is just like the french "connaître" and "savoir"!


I see lots of comments like this -- and I also see lots of comments from people saying "gosh, I thought this was just like X and Y in some language, but now I see some differences." This is all to say -- keep an open mind.


Could say, "You can ken something and not see it". Sort of...


If enough people can parse the word ken then there's nae reason ye couldna sa' tha' in Anglish, laddy.
But I'd advise against using it here.


Would "Mi nek konas ŝin, nek volas koni ŝin." be correct, and if not, why?


Yes, and Duolingo now allows it.


It would be.

But maybe not for this lesson. See my comment to xinode, elsewhere.


Why is "Mi ne konas sxin, nek mi ne volas koni sxin" wrong? Is it incorrect to have the subject again in the second part of the sentence?


I'm just a beginner in Esperanto, but I think you don't need the second "ne" because you already have it in "Mi ne konas…" and "nek" is related to it.


Bonega respondo.

If I may add a tidbit, nek = neither, nor. By placing a second negative after it you are saying , in effect: Nor do I not want to know her.


If this was math, the answer would be positive :)


That's usually true in language too, including here. Mi nek volas koni ŝin, nek volas ne koni ŝin. Mi estas indiferenta.


Yes, but still different from what we are requested to translate.


I'm more inclined to say: "Mi nek konas nek volas koni ŝin" What do the rest of you think?


I was also taught to use "nek" twice, in that way.


That's slightly different. That would be "I neither X, nor Y".


Duolingo now allows Mi nek konas ŝin, nek volas koni ŝin – literally "I neither know her nor want to know her", but it continues not to allow Mi nek konas nek volas koni ŝin. Is it valid for two verbs to share an object in that manner in Esperanto? Would saying Mi ŝin nek konas nek volas koni be any better?


why "ŝin" twice? my understanding is that once introduced as the topic you instead use "sin".

Mi ne konas ŝin, nek volas koni sin.


"Si" is the reflexive pronoun—that is, it refers to the "self" of the subject. "Mi ne konas ŝin, nek volas koni sin" translates to "I don't know her, nor do I want to know herself". (It's a little tricky, because it can also strictly translate to "...nor do I want to know myself" because "mi" is the subject but I'll talk about that later. This sentence wouldn't happen in your average E-o writing since it's grammatically incorrect.)

Here's another example of "si" vs "ŝi": "Ŝi dancas kun ŝin" translates to "She dances with her [i.e. a different woman]"; "Ŝi dancas kun sin" translates to "She dances with herself".

"Li ludas kun lian hundon" translates to "He plays with his dog [i.e. the dog owned by another man]"; "Li ludas kun sian hundon" translates to "He plays with his [own] dog". In each case, the reflexive pronoun "si" explicitly refers to the subject.

"Si" isn't used for first- or second-person pronoun uses (mi, vi, ni) because the reflex of the pronoun is obvious. ("Mi ne konas min, nek ne volas koni min"—"I don't know myself, nor do I want to know myself") But in the third person, it is ambiguous whether the subject and object are the same person so the reflexive pronoun "sin" is used.

After this long ramble, the point is: "si" is not appropriate to use in this case since the subject of the verb and the object of the verb are two different people.


My head is getting confused to what "ne" should stand for no, dont and cannot.


Ne is a negative term. It takes whatever is being said and makes it a negative statement. Hence it can mean all of those things which you list, and probably a few more.

For example: Mi konas ŝin is a normal sentence, one we can deem as positive. Toss a ne before the verb and now I don't know her. Toss that ne before one of the pronouns and it can be "Not I knows her (implying someone else does, just not you) or "I know not her" (Implying that you know someone, just not her). Mi iros (I will go) can become mi ne iros (I won't go). Ne respondu = Don't answer. etc.

Strictly, ne negatives the word it precedes, though this distinction is not always observed. Ne tute = not quite (entirely) but tute ne = by no means, not at all.

Ne~ is also used as a prefix analogous to the English "un~", "in~", "ir~", and "non~" f.e. nedeviga = optional, neklara = indistinct, unclear, nemetala = non-metallic, and neregula = irregular.

Mi esperas, ke vi ne plu estas neklara pro ne.


Why does the verb take the form "konas" in the first clause and "koni" in the second?


Of the little that I know, I think the first one the verb is used in the Present, the second one is infinitive (to know)


This is correct. In the first clause, "mi ne konas ŝin," I do not know her. In the second clause, "…nek volas koni ŝin," nor do I want to know her. In the second clause, "volas" is the intransitive verb and "koni" is the transitive verb.


Why wouldn't I say "Mi ne konas ŝin nek mi volas ŝin"?


"I don't know her, nor am I willing her". There's an infinitive verb missing in the middle. (Also, the second "mi" is not required.)


I had this as the English sentence with the Esperanto word choices, and though I did get it right in the end I was confusedly looking around for another 'mi' for ages first! Is there any reason that the English version includes 'do I'; surely it would be better for the translation to work properly if it was just 'I do not know her, nor want to know her'..? I totally understand that translations don't always work word-to-word and that there can often be (seemingly) superfluous words in one or the other language for it to make grammatical sense in each particular one, I just don't understand here as it seems to me that it would still be perfectly good English without the extra words.


Warning, this sentence does not accept x-system, if you are wondering why you got it wrong. I have reported it


I only reversed the order from 'mi ne konas ŝin' to 'mi ŝin ne konas' and it didn't work - order doesn't matter strictly right?


Mi ŝin ne konas is not the usual word order, but it's not wrong as such. Have you tried reporting it?


Generally, as I've stated elsewhere, ne precedes the word it negates.


When do use konas and when do i use scias?


Koni = To know, be acquainted with. not to be confused with
scii = to know, be aware of (a fact)
povi = to know how to, be able to (do something)
scipovi = Know how to (more specific form of povi)

Koni min estas ami min! = to know me is to love me!
Neniu scias ĉion. = No one knows everything.
Mi ne diris, ke mi konas la lokon, nur ke mi scias ĝin. = I didn't say that know the place well, just that I know of it. [Dankon D-ro Jordan]
Ĉu vi scipovas la turkan? = Can you speak Turkish?

I hope that this helps.


Konas is to know a person. Scias is to understand a thing.

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