"Monujo estas ujo por porti monon."

Translation:A wallet is a container for carrying money.

July 4, 2015

This discussion is locked.


"Purses and wallets are places for carrying money."

Does monujo include both big bags with shoulder straps and latches, and wallets that slip into tight back pockets?

If it does, singling out wallets and leaving purses out seems like it's conveying the wrong meaning.


Interestingly there seems to be a bit of disagreement between my various dictionaries on this point. Aside from monujo I'm also finding words like burso (pouch tied to belt), retikulo (handbag) and ŝultrosako (shoulderbag) as well as biletujo and monbilujo (both being specifically "wallet") as well as several others in books and files which I just didn't leave open on my desk. I notice that nothing claimed to mean "money clip."

I think that perhaps we can accept that monujo is a generic term for a place where we keep money, and if we need to be more exact then we can delve into our various dictionaries, or whatever, and choose from the various terms available there.

And I have noticed that Duo will go with the generic whenever possible.


Can I use -ujo for referring to cage of animal ? for example, porkujo for cage of pig, hundujo for cage of dog ?


PIV defines "hundujo" as "Dometo, en kiu oni tenas gardohundon dumtage" (small house, in which one keeps a guard dog during the day) -- I would call it a kennel (UK) / doghouse (US).

But it could theoretically apply also to a carrying container for a dog, or even a cage.


I could be wrong, but I'm inclined to add portebla to your animal carrier, and I know that there's a word for cage.


Thank you, I couldn't think of the word, was away from my desk, and if I go to my surpoŝtelefona vortaro I get kicked out of Duo.


Should "wearing" money also be accepted? We learned portas as "wears" in the clothing module, so that's what I put.



"porti" in Esperanto, like "porter" in French or "tragen" in German, refers both to physically holding something so that it does not fall down ("carry") and to having something on as clothes ("wear"), but in English, we use separate verbs for those concepts.


Kial mi pensas pri monzonon?


For a moment I thought it said "por morti mono" then I realised this is indeed is the case.


Mi ne tre bone scias la anglan. Kial estas malĝuste diri "for carry money"? Dankon.


Nu, Mi supozas, ke: "for carry money" ŝajnus prave se, kiel vi diris, vi ne parolas bone la anglan. Sed, kiel denaska anglolingvano mi devas diri, ke ĝi malpravas.
La frazo estas en la nuna tenso ĉar ekzistas la vorton estas (is) kaj ĉiuj kiuj sekvas devas esti rigardata, ankaŭ, en la virtuala nuna tenso. Do, la prava frazeto devas esti "For carrying money."
Mi esperas, ke tiu ĉi helpos vin.


Yesterday someone wrote that the acusative should never be used after prepositions and it was not after al. Today I see mono must be monon after por. Why? And if so what are the specific cases where the accusative comes after prepositions?


For those reading along, I would save your breath when interacting with this learner. She makes a lot of, shall we say, unusual claims, starting with this one:

Yesterday someone wrote that the acusative should never be used after prepositions

On the surface, this claim doesn't seem to be very unusual - but if we add the context that by "yesterday" she almost certainly meant "in 2018" and by "someone", she meant me -- I find her comment here truly bizarre.

For additional context, here's the comment from "someone" (me):

With regard to the sentence Li vidas ŝin kaj iras al ŝi.

"Al" is an ordinary preposition and will never have an -n after it.

It's also on the short lists of prepositions that "already show motion" (“Do not use -n after: al, ĝis, de, or el.)

There aren't really any exceptions [as someone suggested] A longer explanation is here:


And her reply from yesterday:

Wow! A bunch of people have tried to convince me to use n after certain prepositions.

And my unanswered reply to her yesterday:

Care to elaborate? Who? In what context?

Full context:


Given the history that I and others have had. Specifically, she showed up in the Facebook group for Esperanto learners claiming to be an Esperanto teacher, openly rejected any advice from the experienced Esperanto speakers there, all the while asking really basic questions, and given her habit of asking questions without apparently reading the explanations, I would think twice about spending time composing an answer.


Today I see mono must be monon after por.

No. It's not por monon.

It's por porti monon.

The accusative case comes from the verb porti.

The fact that porti monon then has por has no effect -- por can't "look inside" the clause porti monon and affect the case.

Compare an English sentence such as "The girl who hit him is being punished now."

You can't say that this sentence is wrong because "him is being punished" would be wrong.

The subject of a sentence has to be in the subjective case, not the objective (e.g. "he", not "him"), but the subject here is not "him" -- it's "the girl who hit him".

There, "him" is in the objective case because it's the object of the verb "hit".

The fact that "him" is part of a clause that is the subject of another verb is not relevant here.


Mizinamo - great answer. I recently answered some questions for a similarly confused learner who wanted to know why there was an N "after a preposition."

I've seen similar confusion about accusatives "after estas."

  • La krokodilo estas du metrojn longa.

It seems a fine balance to strike between getting bogged down in grammatical terminology and oversimplifying things with words like "after".


I just noticed that KaylenePet asked a similar question here:



If anybody is interested, here's the similar question. Scroll down to "I've read multiple times".


I will link back to Mizinamo's answer here in case that helps some people better than my answer there could.


That makes sense. However today some words after prepositions did have the acusative and I wish there was a complete explication of when yes and when no.


Could you provide specific examples of what you saw "today" and what you would like to know about?


I gave you a "complete explication" multiple times - including here, over year ago:



But it is after porti!

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