"He does not find the lamp in the box."

Translation:La lampon en la kesto li ne trovas.

June 20, 2015

This discussion is locked.


An Esperanto course contributor Yoda must be. HMMMMMMMM?


La lampon, li ne trovas! He he he he!

(Honestly, one of the coolest things about the accusative in Esperanto is being able to grammatically correctly imitate Yoda)


The sentence is clearly grammatically correct, but is it idiomatic to invert the sentence in this way? Or would li ne trovas la lampon en la kesto be more idiomatic?


It seems you got used only to the SVO word sequence. In my native language, since they're a bunch of grammatical cases, it's possible to use almost any word order and it's one of the reasons why it's too hard to learn. Generally people use the same SVO order, but in colloquial speech (or poetry) they often use another one to emphasize specific things, or to express some emotions. I suppose the same thing can be easily done in Esperanto, too.


"Colloquial speech" is the speech that "people generally use."


But even so, people may emphasize things in colloquial speech by speaking in a way that isn't the usual way for colloquial speech.


"La lampon en la kesto li ne trovas" Does this mean that he looked in the box and the lamp wasn't there? Or does it mean that he looked for the lamp (which really is in the box) but he didn't look in the box, and so he didn't find the lamp?


If you think about it, it could mean either in english, too.


It could be either; it's dependent on context. The prepositional phrase "en la kesto" could be modifying either "la lampon" (the lamp is in the box and he never looked there) or "trovas" (he tried to find the lamp in the box but it wasn't there). The former seems more likely based on word order, but there's no strict rule on this.


The way it is written, the lamp was always in the box but he did not find it.


Schrodinger's lamp.


but was the lamp bulb alive or dead?


Looked into the box but didn't find



You can say, either:

La lampon, kiu estas en la kesto, li ne trovis.

Li ne trovis la lampon, ĉar ĝi ne estis en la kesto.

Li serĉis la lampon en la kesto, sed ne trovis ĝin.


"Li ne trovas la lampon en la kesto" estis akceptita. La oficiala respondo estas kiel Yoda paroli.


Reported it. Now accepting Li ne trovas la lampon en la kesto.



"He does not find the lamp in the box" = Li ne trovas la lampon en la kesto

Kial kompliki tion, kio estas tiel simpla?


Why not also this way? Li ne trovas la lampon en la kesto.


Cu lampo kaj skatolo estas la sama afero?




kaj lampo:


i think Casasduas meant if lampo kaj skatolo is the same as lampo kaj kesto. So the answer is yes, more or less.


Kial oni ne akceptas "La lampon ne trovas en la kesto li" ?


Possibly only because no-one has reported it? But maybe because this word order feels really contrived and unnatural – specifically shifting li right to the end of the sentence in this way. I don't think it's wrong, per se, but Duolingo is trying to teach you Esperanto as it is actually spoken, which I really don't think your answer is.

It feels to me like this sentence naturally splits into three parts – la lampon, li ne trovas, and en la kesto. Depending on the emphasis you wish to place on the sentence, these can probably be put in any order, and that is the point I think this question is making. By default, you'd probably translate this sentence as li ne trovas la lampon en la kesto, but it has reordered in the suggested answer to shift the emphasis from the subject (li) to the object (la lampon). That's not unlike the passive voice in English – though to be clear, this is not an instance of the passive voice.


i think these contributors are just sadists

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