1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Mia onklo konsilis, ke mi in…

"Mia onklo konsilis, ke mi informu lin pri mia fratino."

Translation:My uncle advised that I inform him about my sister.

June 30, 2015



Why "Mia onklo konsilis, ke mi inforu lin" instead of "Mia onklo konsilis, ke me informu sin"? Does this sentence clearly me that we should inform "him", where "him" is not my uncle?


No, it's not correct. "Sin" is used only with li/ŝi/ĝi/ili and refers to a subject (in this case "mi" is a subject of the clause). You can say: "Mia onklo konsilis, ke mi informu la/tiun onklon" if context is not clear.


Isn't the subject 'mia onklo?'


There are two clauses seperated by a comma. The first: Mia onklo konsilis, The second: ke mi informu lin pri mia fratino. Each of them has its own subject. In the first clause: "mia onklo", in the second one: "mi"


If the sentence was:

"Li konsilis, ke mi informu ___ pri ..."

Would we use lin or sin?


"lin" in the second clause likely refers to a fourth person.

(the speaker the uncle the listener the person who should be informed)


Mi ne estas mustelol! Mi diros nenion!


Why is inform in the imperative here? The notes say:

The -u ending is used when ordering / inviting someone else to do something -- or when telling or suggesting to ourselves what to do!

In this case my uncle is advising me, not ordering, requiring nor inviting me. Shouldn't we be using the infinitive here?

Are the notes wrong, or incomplete, or is the sentence wrong?

There is one other possibility, and that is that we are using doublespeak, where to advise implies a threat. If this were the case, then I certainly wouldn't want an uncle like that!


It's one of the functions of the -u form but not the only one. If you look at Tips Notes more closely, you can read:


We also use the -u ending in subordinate phrases (clauses) starting with ke, when the verb in the preceding, main part of the sentence expresses a want, desire, demand or preference:



Thank you, very helpful!


But it is not expressing a want, a desire, a demand or a preference. It is about advice, which is none of those things!


Isn't it preference? Anyway, it says what something should be/what should be done not what it is.

Citing form Wikipedia:

The sentence containing the deontic modal generally indicates some action that would change the world so that it becomes closer to the standard or ideal.



The only advice worth having is that which is given disinterestedly. I have certainly given advice suggesting that the advisee do something that I would prefer that he didn't do. So, no, it is not a preference. It might well be deontic modality. (Thanks for that.)

Anyway, I'll just have to get used to it. Advice is a suggestion and the notes specifically say "... suggesting to ourselves what to do ...". I should, therefore, have worked out that a suggestion to other people also takes the imperative.


You have been given the links to all material, everything is explained (when to use -u or not to), what is it that you need more? Change Esperanto rules?


"Mi informu lin" = I should inform him

"Mia onklo konsikis, ke mi informu lin" = My uncle advised that I should inform him


My interpretation is that -u is appropriately used whenever there is a persuasive intent (and as such, the verb "advise" would clearly be included).


Kiel oni diras "um" esperante?


Kion vi volis diri precise? Um in german = cxirkaux Um in portuguese = unu


Kiu "um" vi diris pri? Kiu lingvo?


Why "inform" ? Why do not "My uncle advised that I informed him about my sister." ?


If you use "informed" (indicitive past-tense), it would mean that I ALREADY informed him in the past.

If you use "inform" (imperitive), it would mean that the uncle is advising that I SHOULD inform him.

Are you trying to say that it should happen, or that it already happened?


Yea I am also perplexed about this. Grammatically should be "informed", right?



No, because the English word "informed" (as you suggested) is "indicitive past-tense", meaning it indicates that something happened in the past.

Instead the sentence is using "inform" in the imperitive case. Imperitive case shows that something is being demanded or saying that something should occur.

In Esperanto the imperitive case is shown by the "-u" in the Esperanto word "informu".

In English, I believe that the imperitive is determined by context (it is less obvious compared to Esperanto).


I feel like "inform" is a strange way of saying it. Would "tell" be correct as well?


Does "inform" and "tell" mean the same thing?


Is "My uncle suggested ..." a bad translation?


Tiu estus alia verbo: "Mia onklo sugestis..."


Why not "shall''?


Because "shall" would indicate that something will occur.

Instead, the sentence is showing that the uncle is informing me that I should do something.

Think of the difference between "I shall study" compared to "I should study".


What could his sister have possibly done?


I was thinking she died.

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