"He is too fat to run fast."

Translation:Li estas tro dika por rapide kuri.

June 15, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Stupid question: Why is the "por" necessary? Since the verb for run is in the infinitive, I read it as "too fat to run"


The to in too fat to run in not the to of the infinitive to run. The infinitive is used here without to. It is just run. The to belongs to the construction too … to. And this translates as tro … por.


If you @Novantico would replace the simple present tense run by present continuous tense running , just as a thought experiment, when you think of these kind of sentences, it is much clearer what por is needed force... since these are equal (enough here) :

  • too fat for running

  • too fat to run

Qomprende amigo ?

Actually I think the problem is rather the inconsistent use of to and for in English for he same thing, but that is just my personal add-on. BTW since for and por are written so similar it could be a good mnemo tech thing...

just mina du cents...


PMEG gives this explanation: http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/i-verboj/kun_rolvortetoj.html

It's something to do with clarifying the role of the verb within the sentence, although it can indeed be left out sometimes. For the sentence of this discussion, it would sound a bit odd to me if "por" were left out.


Why "tro dika" and not "tre dika"


Tro dika is “too fat.” Tre dika is “very fat.”


Ah! Finally! I could not figure it out. This has been bothering me for long.


I dont understand the difference between tro and tre. In English, too and very and be differentiated by their usage. For example, a sentence of the form "too...to". Does the usage of tro have similar implications in Esperanto?


I think you could write: too fast = tro rapide; very fast = tre rapide


Yes, it does, of course.

[deactivated user]

    does the adverb always precede the verb in Esperanto "rapide kuri" as opposed to "kuri rapide", or should I have reported this?


    Both are correct.

    [deactivated user]


      The best Esperanto practise is to put the adverb just before the word you want to modify. If there is no doubt about it you can put it elsewhere. So here both forms are correct.


      Ĉu estas eble diri <<Li estas tro grasa por kuri rapide>>?


      Tute ne. :-) Grasa signifas fattygreasy en la angla.
      »Li estas tro grasa por kapti lin.«


      From what I understand so far, "in order to". I believe in these types of sentences in English, the preposition "to" serves a similar function or the same as "por" in Esperanto, rather than strictly forming part of the infinitive. It may be also because we tend to drop the "in order" part in English. I can't see this with 100% certainty. Maybe someone with a better understanding of this particular aspect of grammar when know better than I woul, or could explain it in more detail. Just thought this may help.

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