"What color is the car he wants to buy?"

Translation:Kiun koloron havas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?

June 23, 2015

81 Comments
This discussion is locked.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Pedro_Santiago_

Why is kiun twice? The first one I understand, but why the second?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/salivanto

Summary of questions with answers. If you found this useful, please upvote so others can see.

This thread was created in June 2015 and I only just discovered it. There is a ton of discussion here. Let's see if we can add some clarity.

Why is kiun twice? The first one I understand, but why the second?

34 upvotes in the 4 years since the question was asked (August 2016) - but no answers, at least none directly to that question. Let's look at the sentence and the literal translation.

  • Kiun koloron havas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?
  • Which color (does) the car have, which he wants to buy?

Hopefully looking at it that way, the answer will be clear. Esperanto doesn't allow us to drop relative pronouns the way English does.

Note that aŭto and li are the subjects, and kiun is the direct object in both cases because the car has the color, and he wants to buy the car.

Why do we need "kiun" before he wants to buy

This is essentially the same question as above. Asked three years later, it's gotten some decent answers.

Is it because "he wants to buy" is not a complete sentence?

Sort of.

Note also that kiun has two different roles in this sentence. The first kiun is a question word. The second is a relative pronoun. It takes the place of aŭto in the second clause. The compound sentence is built from the following simple sentences.

  • Li volas aĉeti aŭton
  • Kiun koloron havas la aŭto?

To avoid saying aŭto twice, we use the relative pronoun kiu in the first simple sentence. Since aŭton is accusative, we retain the -n on kiu. Then the relative pronoun gets moved to the beginnning of the clause.

  • Li volas aĉeti aŭton
  • Li volas aĉeti kiun
  • kiun li volas aĉeti

But if it's the car THAT he wants to buy, why don't we use TIUN, TION, or KE?

English will steer you wrong. It's best to think of it as the car which he wants to buy... or learn to think in Esperanto.

The correlatives that start with ti- are demonstratives (like "there" and "then"). They aren't used to form relative clauses. The difference can be demonstrated like this.

  • The time when he was here / the time then he was here.
  • The place where we met / the place there we met.
  • The person whom I saw / the person them I saw.
  • The car which I want to buy / the car the one I want to buy.

It's only because "that" can mean "which" or "the one" in English that we're tempted to use a ti-correlative.

As for ke - it's a conjunction and wouldn't be used here. (I've described it in detail in other threads.)


What about a sentence with estas?

One suggested sentence was:

  • Kiu kolora estas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?

I can't speak for what the course will accept, but yes -- this is on the right track. The question word needs to be one word though:

  • Kiukolora estas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?
  • Kiakolora estas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?

And yes - both kiukolora and kiakolora are OK. In my conversation with Lee Miller we discussed this very point.

However, the person who said that there's a problem with kiu koloro estas la aŭto is exactly right. Cars aren't colors. They have them. (At least, that's how it works in Esperanto.)

Note however that you can say - la aŭto estas ruĝa because ruĝa is an adjective.


What's the difference between kio and kiu?

What vs which/who.

Note in English we often say "what" when we mean which.

  • What car is yours? / Which car is yours.

In this case, since you can say "which" you should use "kiu".


Why do we need any verb at all to describe the color of the car?

The sentence being asked abotu in this case was:

  • Kiun koloron de la aŭto kiun li volas aĉeti?

I'm curious about the native language of the person asking the question. In English this would make no sense.

  • Which color of the car that he wants to buy?

It doesn't make sense in Esperanto either. We need a verb (see above) to show that we're asking what color the car has/is.

But in a statement you can say:
li volas aĉeti la ruĝan aŭton. (There is no havas or estas), but in question we have to add a new verb.

It's not because it's a question. The actual statement is:

  • La aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti, estas ruĝa.

The question version of the given statement is:

  • Kiukoloran aŭton li volas aĉeti?
  • What colored car does he want to buy?

It's a valid question, but not the one under discussion.


What's the difference between aŭto and aŭton?

The -n shows that it's a direct object.

https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/9650731/When-to-use-the-n-ending


What about de kiu koloro estas la aŭto??

Yes, I think you could justify both

  • de kiu koloro
  • de kia koloro

This sentence clearly proves Esperanto is just as confusing as any other language.

I think you mean "... proves THAT Esperanto is..." -- and by the way, in this case "that" would be ke in Esperanto.

It's hard to disagree with the sentiment. I routinely say that we need to stop saying that Esperanto is an "easy language". It causes people to come in with the wrong expectations. At the same time, though, this thread shows the importance of good explanations and of actually taking the time to read well-written grammatical explanations before trying to translate sentences or before asking questions on the internet.

Part of the problem is not that Esperanto is all that hard -- but that it's different from English here.


Can I use kion instead of kiun?

No.

Try searching the thread for "stands alone" for a good explanation.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ChikinWingu

Is there a reason why "kio" can function as a question word and a relative pronoun? Are those just two functions assigned to it, or is there actually a common thread between the two functions?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

That's a trait in German, and I suspect in many (all?) languages Zamenhof spoke. I can imagine it being that way in Indo-European languages in general.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ChikinWingu

Do you know if there is any reasoning behind it? I can't think of a reason why a word meaning "what of a set?" would also be used as a pronoun to refer to a previously mentioned topic when referring to new information about said topic.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

No, but a moment. You said "what of a set" and yet you initially mentioned kio and not kiu.

What is your native language? What kind of system does it use?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ChikinWingu

Oops, sorry, I meant to say "kiu."


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/salivanto

You should be able to edit your posts. It can help head off misunderstandings.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/salivanto

Is there a reason why "kio" [note: later clarified to kiu] can function as a question word and a relative pronoun? Are those just two functions assigned to it, or is there actually a common thread between the two functions?

This is a very interesting question. As Juha pointed out, this is a common feature in many languages - so the short answer is -- Esperanto does it because these other languages do it.

But if the question is why the other languages do it...

It's certainly common for languages to use the same set of words as question words and to form relative clauses -- but it's not universal. In Pakuni, a fictional language based on the Bantu languages, and the only non-European language I know well, does it differently. Pakuni uses a "relativizer" unrelated to the question words (e.g. eram sha ma - moon which gives).

Since reading the question, I've been reading up on relative clauses in Japanese. It's kind of pushing my forgotten year of Japanese, but they do it differently too -- clarifying nouns by putting mini-sentences in front of them. Again, this is unrelated to the question word.

But does the Esperanto/European way make sense?

I don't know where this form came from - and I suspect it goes further back than records exist - but to me, yes, it does make sense. It's easiest to think of indirect questions or answers to questions.

  • Kiu li estas?
  • Mi ne scias, kiu li estas.
  • Kie li loĝas?
  • Mi diros al vi, kie li loĝas.
  • Kion li havas?
  • Mi ne povas vidi, kion li havas.
  • Ĉu vi kisis lin?
  • Mi ne malkaŝos al vi, ĉu mi kisis lin.

Notice how the question is neatly repeated when talking about the question. By the way, notice also that it works neatly with ĉu.

Well, now that I've written this up, I'm going to see if someone has already written an explanation somewhere.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Hughnorris170652

Why do we need "kiun" before he wants to buy


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/HakonSoreide

Because you can’t drop the relative pronoun in an essential/dependent clause in Esperanto the way you can in English.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/joelfeila

so because he wants to buy is not a complete sentence you have to use the question word twice


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/HuckleSmothered

I would have thought this would be kiun then tiun vs kiun twice. It makes more sense to me that it would be: Kiun koloron havas la aŭto, tiun li volas aĉeti? Although that's my 2nd instinct. My 1st was "... ke li volas aĉeti."


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

English omits words and lets the listener/reader to fill the gaps.

"What colour is the car he wants to buy?" is shortened from "What colour is the car which/that he wants to buy?"

I'm not a native speaker of English and therefore can't say which would be more appropriate here, but that's not the point.

Esperanto avoids such shortening and prefers explicit marking in order to be more understandable for many.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/o4tuna

Me too. My understanding is that correlatives beginning with "k" ask, whereas those beginning with "t" indicate.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/salivanto

I answered this specific question in a mini-FAQ that I just posted here in this thread.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/superiacovelli

Ok, why can't we use "ke" in place of "kiun"? Is it because ke is more for connecting two sentences like "I like ke he wants to go" and kiun is like "which" so it's more like "I like the car which he wants to buy"?

While we're asking about question words here, Kio is what. Kion is what when it's the thing being "verbed." Kiom with an m at the end...Should the m at the end be thought of as another letter attachment with meaning making kiom be more like what amount?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/HuckleSmothered

Kiom is how much. Kiom da akvo = How much water.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/AmericanBull

My question is not about Kio(n) vs Kiu(n) vs Kia(n), but the use of "havas". The Esperanto translation comes across as though it's asking "What color has the car..." which doesn't make sense. I would think "estas" should be used instead of "havas".


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/HakonSoreide

If you use estas here, you are saying that the car is the concept of the colour itself and not a means of communication that has a certain visual quality.

You can say "La aŭto estas ruĝa", but you have to say "La aŭto havas ruĝan koloron." not "La aŭto estas ruĝa koloro."

The latter means "The car is the same thing as the colour red".

I hope you see the difference.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/meaniezucchini

I see the difference but in that case, why don't we use havas in other similar situations? Unless I'm mistaken, we can say "La floroj estas ruĝaj" and "Li estas laca" even though they aren't the physical embodiment of those concepts. What makes this different?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/LouisSepdekdu

Because the adjective "ruĝa" means "ruĝkolora", not "estanta la koloro ruĝo". In the same way that "laca" does not mean "estanta laceco".


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/coenny

would " Kiu kolora estas la auxto, kiun li volas acxeti?" also work?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/elechim

I would use kia, meaning "what kind". <Kia estas la koloro de la aŭto, ...?> (see case (1) at http://vortaro.net/#kia)

I'm not sure your sentence is 100% correct, because kolora means coloured/having colour; so it's either "Which coloured thing is the car", or "Which is the coloured car". The last one is very similar to our original sentence, but we'd like to ask what colour, not what car; so the way I see it, we don't care about the car model.

I hope I was not too confusing, or wrong :D


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/kbalara

Hello guys. The most proper way would be KIA KOLORO? The possible answers would have -a ending (rugxa, flava...). So it most be a -a ending question (KIA?), and KOLORO must remain -o.

KIU? is correct only in determinated cases in which you already know the possible options. Imagine I see three cars, its colors are blue, red and green. In this situation is better to ask which? (KIU KOLORO?)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/HakonSoreide

A lot of confusion is taking place because "kiu" is frequently described as "which (out of known options)", but what it means is "which" when the category is known. We know what a colour is, and we don't want to ask that, and that's when we ask which colour something is. English behaves somewhat differently to Esperanto, and so do many other languages, hence the confusion.

Anyway, kia koloro means "what kind of colour", which would give answers describing the cololur, such as matt, glossy, metallic, dark or light, but not the actual colour itself.

As long as the car is the subject and the verb is not esti, the colour becomes the object and it must be koloron.

If you tried saying "kiu koloro estas la aŭto, you are saying that the car is a colour (the concept of the colour itself, not a means of communication that has a specific visual quality), and you are asking which one.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/elechim

The problem I see, is that when in english we say "the car is red", that translates in esperanto to either

1) "the car has red-colour (noun)" - la aŭto havas ruĝon (kiel koloron, as a colour) 2) "the car is red-coloured(adjective)" - la aŭto estas ruĝa

You can't say a colour IS a car. So "Kia koloro estas la aŭto, ..." is wrong.

What you can say is "Kian koloron havas la aŭto,.." but at this point what colour is just as fine as what kind of colour, so we're back to the suggested correct answer, "Kiun koloron..".

The only other sentence I am able to see working with kia, is "Kia estas la koloro de la aŭto, ..?"


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Mutusen

Yes, if you write kiukolora as one word.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/coenny

Why would it not work as 2 words


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Mutusen

Kiu asks a question about a noun: kiu kolora aŭto would be "what colored car", not asking about the color of the car but about which one of the colored cars.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/HWF10

Can I say "kia koloro estas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?" ?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/arhop2

Why kiun twice


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/illuminatic.sven

I think there is no sich thing as contact clause in Esperanto, so you have to use kiun as the relative pronoun. But I'm not native speaker, so maybe I'm wrong.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DrewDdmek

What's the difference between kio and kiu?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/tyedyedfern

kio is "what" while kiu is "what specific person/thing, who/which"


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Franz-Ebersburg

Kia koloro? Hela, malhela, bela, malbela, agrabla... Kiu koloro? Blua, ❤❤❤❤❤, ora, ... Kia homo? Granda, honesta, inteligenta,... Kiu homo? Petro, Maria,...


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/salivanto

This is not a helpful response. First, it ignores the models from the Fundamento such as "koloro blanka" and "ruĝeta koloro". Also, it completely misses the bigger problem that if you say "kia koloro estas la domo" you're saying that the house and the color are the same thing.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/salivanto

Summary of questions with answers. If you found this useful, please upvote so others can see.

This thread was created in June 2015 and I only just discovered it. There is a ton of discussion here. Let's see if we can add some clarity.

Why is kiun twice? The first one I understand, but why the second?

34 upvotes in the 4 years since the question was asked (August 2016) - but no answers, at least none directly to that question. Let's look at the sentence and the literal translation.

  • Kiun koloron havas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?
  • Which color (does) the car have, which he wants to buy?

Hopefully looking at it that way, the answer will be clear. Esperanto doesn't allow us to drop relative pronouns the way English does.

Note that aŭto and li are the subjects, and kiun is the direct object in both cases because the car has the color, and he wants to buy the car.

Why do we need "kiun" before he wants to buy

This is essentially the same question as above. Asked three years later, it's gotten some decent answers.

Is it because "he wants to buy" is not a complete sentence?

Sort of.

Note also that kiun has two different roles in this sentence. The first kiun is a question word. The second is a relative pronoun. It takes the place of aŭto in the second clause. The compound sentence is built from the following simple sentences.

  • Li volas aĉeti aŭton
  • Kiun koloron havas la aŭto?

To avoid saying aŭto twice, we use the relative pronoun kiu in the first simple sentence. Since aŭton is accusative, we retain the -n on kiu. Then the relative pronoun gets moved to the beginnning of the clause.

  • Li volas aĉeti aŭton
  • Li volas aĉeti kiun
  • kiun li volas aĉeti

But if it's the car THAT he wants to buy, why don't we use TIUN, TION, or KE?

English will steer you wrong. It's best to think of it as the car which he wants to buy... or learn to think in Esperanto.

The correlatives that start with ti- are demonstratives (like "there" and "then"). They aren't used to form relative clauses. The difference can be demonstrated like this.

  • The time when he was here / the time then he was here.
  • The place where we met / the place there we met.
  • The person whom I saw / the person them I saw.
  • The car which I want to buy / the car the one I want to buy.

It's only because "that" can mean "which" or "the one" in English that we're tempted to use a ti-correlative.

As for ke - it's a conjunction and wouldn't be used here. (I've described it in detail in other threads.)


What about a sentence with estas?

One suggested sentence was:

  • Kiu kolora estas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?

I can't speak for what the course will accept, but yes -- this is on the right track. The question word needs to be one word though:

  • Kiukolora estas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?
  • Kiakolora estas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?

And yes - both kiukolora and kiakolora are OK. In my conversation with Lee Miller we discussed this very point.

However, the person who said that there's a problem with kiu koloro estas la aŭto is exactly right. Cars aren't colors. They have them. (At least, that's how it works in Esperanto.)

Note however that you can say - la aŭto estas ruĝa because ruĝa is an adjective.


What's the difference between kio and kiu?

What vs which/who.

Note in English we often say "what" when we mean which.

  • What car is yours? / Which car is yours.

In this case, since you can say "which" you should use "kiu".


Why do we need any verb at all to describe the color of the car?

The sentence being asked abotu in this case was:

  • Kiun koloron de la aŭto kiun li volas aĉeti?

I'm curious about the native language of the person asking the question. In English this would make no sense.

  • Which color of the car that he wants to buy?

It doesn't make sense in Esperanto either. We need a verb (see above) to show that we're asking what color the car has/is.

But in a statement you can say:
li volas aĉeti la ruĝan aŭton. (There is no havas or estas), but in question we have to add a new verb.

It's not because it's a question. The actual statement is:

  • La aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti, estas ruĝa.

The question version of the given statement is:

  • Kiukoloran aŭton li volas aĉeti?
  • What colored car does he want to buy?

It's a valid question, but not the one under discussion.


What's the difference between aŭto and aŭton?

The -n shows that it's a direct object.

https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/9650731/When-to-use-the-n-ending


What about de kiu koloro estas la aŭto??

Yes, I think you could justify both

  • de kiu koloro
  • de kia koloro

This sentence clearly proves Esperanto is just as confusing as any other language.

I think you mean "... proves THAT Esperanto is..." -- and by the way, in this case "that" would be ke in Esperanto.

It's hard to disagree with the sentiment. I routinely say that we need to stop saying that Esperanto is an "easy language". It causes people to come in with the wrong expectations. At the same time, though, this thread shows the importance of good explanations and of actually taking the time to read well-written grammatical explanations before trying to translate sentences or before asking questions on the internet.

Part of the problem is not that Esperanto is all that hard -- but that it's different from English here.


Can I use kion instead of kiun?

No.

Try searching the thread for "stands alone" for a good explanation.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/NachshonB

(I'll just take this random opportunity to praise you for your fenomenal contribution to this course discussions, all throughout.)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/YCZhong

How about ‘De Kiu koloro estas la aŭto’ ? does it work?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Franz-Ebersburg

alia solvo: kiu estas la koloro de la aŭto, kiun vi volas aĉeti


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/zurdocap

Wky kia and not kio?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/sdtrask1

I do not see an answer as to why this should not be ", ke li volas aĉeti" rather than "kiun li volas aĉeti." Or would either one be equally correct?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/vgSe5

English phrase seemed to me just as "Car of what color does he want to buy?" And Esperanto phrase means that there is a certain car that he wants to buy that has a certain color.

I thought that translation is not correct and wanted to peopose another translation. But it's nice that I realised the point while writing it here.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ethan479937

Would it be also correct to use "kion koloron" here instead of "kiun koloron"?

From what I've read, "kiu" asks the question "which induvidual", whereas "kio" asks "what thing". That's a different shade of meaning, but it's not clear to me how that distinction would manifest itself in this particular sentence.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/LouisSepdekdu

Kio always stands alone. It means "what among all things existing", not "what among that specific kind of things". Kiu is used for that second meaning.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ethan479937

Thanks! Since originally asking my question I'd had it answered by way of a similar question I asked about another sentence (which was about tio/tiu instead of kio/kiu, but the same principle applies). Good to be reminded of it though. I wish this "kio/tio always stands alone" rule were explicitly called out in the Tips and Notes.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Espels

Why they use havas here? Can I say: Kiun koloron de la auxto kiun li volas acxeti?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

A colour is a feature, a noun, that the car has, i.e. Kiun koloron havas…. If you want to ask about the attribute, adjective, you can use the construction Kiukolora estas… (N.B. written as a compound word). However kiun koloron havas… is by far a more common expression.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Espels

I don't think I get why I just can use "de la auxto", for example a positive sentence:

li volas acxeti la rugxan auxton. (There is no havas or estas), but in question we have to add a new verb.

Thanks anyway


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

The sentence is an inquire about the colour of the car some specified he is about to buy.

The positive sentence li volas aĉeti la ruĝan aŭton answers the different question kion li volas fari? or kiun aŭton li volas aĉeti?.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Espels

Someone give me this answer (in the other site),

Kiukoloran aŭton li volas aĉeti?

It sounds pretty logic to me


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/LouisSepdekdu

Your main sentence lacks a verb. You're asking "Which color of the car that he wants to buy?"


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Rubens796767

would "kiun koloron havas la auxto ke li volas acxeti?" be also correct?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

Nope. I think you are mixing the two meanings of the English "that", which can either begin

  • a relative clause ("What color is the car, that he wants to buy?" : Kiun koloron havas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti?)

or

  • a subordinate clause ("Henry noticed, that he will mis the bus" : Henro rimarkis, ke li maltrafos la buson).

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/bartimaus

I am so grateful to not know that "that" has two different meanings in English. English is so much easier, not knowing.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/WritingMuppet

My question is what's the difference between auxto and auxton?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Ethan479937

"Aŭto" is the basic (nominative) form of the noun. "Aŭton" is the same noun in the accusative form. Adding the accusative suffix (-n) to a noun indicates that it is the object or recipient of the action of a verb. It may help you remember this to think of "accusative" by its relation to the word "accuse" - when you accuse someone, you often point to that person, and that's exactly what the accusative does. It points to the noun which is receiving the action of the verb.

The accusative is important in Esperanto because, unlike English, word order is more flexible, meaning you can't rely on a noun's position within the sentence to know whether it's the subject or object. It's just as correct to say "La aŭto havas koloron" and "Koloron havas la aŭto" - both mean "the car has a color". "Aŭto" is the subject, "havas" is the verb, and "koloro(n)" is the object. If you switched which noun had the accusative, you'd reverse the meaning of the sentence. "La aŭton havas koloro" and "Koloro havas la aŭton" both mean "a color has the car".

(The accusative is also used for a few other purposes in Esperanto, which you'll learn about later in the course, but this is the only one you need to know for now. All of the uses of the accusative have that "pointing" mentality in common.)

If you're taking the course on a mobile device (iOS or Android), I would suggest logging into duolingo.com in a regular web browser once in a while so you can read the "tips and notes" for each lesson. They are extremely important as they explain the grammar and concepts of the language. In the mobile app, you can only get the "immersion learning" of rote practice, which is important but isn't going to give you a firm grasp of the underlying rules, which I suspect is why you're wondering about this.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/WritingMuppet

Thankyou! Yes I wasn't aware that the web browser had actual lessons on it. I'll log in and check them out.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

I'll second to Ethan. Do the all exercises first with a browser to see the lessons, tips and notes. Once you have a grasp of the grammar, you can switch to the mobile app for practising.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ACA_TOY

Regarding the question "What color is the car he wants to buy?" I typed "kio kolora estas la aŭto li volas aĉeti" and got it wrong. I don't understand the answer DUO gave. Kiun koloron havas la aŭto, kiun li volas aĉeti? I need more practice and knowledge of the grammar rules regarding Esperanto...


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/salivanto

Can we vote this thread back up to 0? There's no reason to vote down sentence threads.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/vgSe5

It should be "what color has the car" in or Esperanto translation should mean "what color is the car", too.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/LouisSepdekdu

No. English says "something is some color". Esperanto says "io havas iun koloron".


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/CarloGamag1

Why is the second kiun necessary? If anything It should be "That" he wants to buy so one should use "Tio". I'm just starting to study Esperanto so any help is appreciated. Also why using anything like in English : ----la auto li vola aceti. ( sorry for the lack of accents.)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/LouisSepdekdu

That's because English uses "that" for a lot of things which have nothing to do with one another. Also, because English likes to drop words and leave people filling the gaps.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

Exactly. English is notorious for omitting all kinds of markings, what roles words play in sentences. This creates an illusion of, that English is an easy-to-learn language: just put words after each other. But the caveat is, that there are lots of rules you have to know. In order to be easier for a wider range of people the grammar of Esperanto requires much visible marking, to be more explicit.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Bella585116

Why " Kiun koloron estas la auto" is wrong? Can't I replace "havas" to "estas"?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

A colour is a property a car has. You might want to read the discussion above.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/frnandoh

Ĉu paroli "Kiu koloro estas la aŭto kiun li volas aĉeti?" estas korekta?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

Ne, ne estas ĝusta. Legu aliajn komentojn.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/bartimaus

This sentence clearly proves esperanto is just as confusing as any other language. Holy. Freaking. Crap.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

I don't get what is so confusing in this sentence. Can you specify? I assume, that you have read the comments above.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/NachshonB

I'm not bartimaus, but having similar thoughts about this sentence.

The issue isn't that the grammer rules are unclear - after reading a small portion of the comments I got it all - but that the result of them is so far removed from the simplicity and straightforward-ness I came to expect from Esperanto in prior lessons. Here there is a combination of a rigid and strange construct, with a confusing usage of acuusative case, that took me a while to unpack and build a sentence that sounded correct - only to get hit by the curve ball of "havas"... It's not neccesary difficult, it's more a case of an overload of new, unfamiliar concepts.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/James3.14159236

La auto estas ruga = ruga auto. ???


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/AstroTsiga

I used kion in both places, i guess kiun is better, and i understand why, but still, kion is also correct, right?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/LouisSepdekdu

No. The first "kiun" cannot be replaced by "kion" because of the noun "koloron". "Kion" means "Which thing". "Kion koloron" make as much sense as "Which thing color".

The second "kiun" cannot be replaced with "kion" because the relative pronoun "kio" can only have as antecedent another tabelvorto ending in O (tio kio, nenio kio...)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/AstroTsiga

I see the first kiun, but don't the second. Why can I not refer to "la aŭto" with kio?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Juha_Metsakallas

Read the summary by Salivanto above.

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