1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "We are going to a restaurant…

"We are going to a restaurant to eat dinner."

Translation:Ni iras al restoracio por vespermanĝi.

July 4, 2015



Why does the "por" need to be there?


We are going to a restaurant IN ORDER TO eat dinner. Ni iras al restoracio POR vespermanĝi.


Why isn't it vespermanĝo?


"Vespermanĝo" is the noun "dinner" (or supper, depending on where you are). "Vespermanĝi" is the verb "to eat dinner".

If we said "Ni iras al restoracio por vespermanĝo.", it would instead mean "We are going to a restaurant in order to dinner." In this case, we want the verb form for eating dinner, "vespermanĝi".


Isn't this beyond this lesson then? I don't think I learnt usages of infinitives


Looks like it is. The infinitive lesson is two after the food lesson, though I think infinitives were popping up beforehand. If I get this sentence again, I'll try to report it.


isnt vespermangas the verb form? And vespermangi the infinitive form? So wouldnt we use vespermangas?


The infinitive is used to talk about actions in general. The -as, -is -os forms are used when you're saying who is doing them. So "ni iras" says that WE are going. But when we get to the part about "to eat dinner" we're talking about eating as a general activity. We are going for eating. Not "we are going for we eating."


Because vespermanĝo is supper, and tagmanĝo is diner.


That depends on where you are. Where I am, "vespermanĝo" means "dinner" and "tagmanĝo" means "lunch".


Literally, vespermanĝo means "evening meal" and tagmanĝo means "day meal". Whatever those may be called in your area.


Cool link yiu provided


Shouldn't we be able to say, "Ni iras al restoracio vespermangxi?" I was actually studying this same topic in the PMEG the other day and unless I'm mistaken I didn't think the "por" was mandatory before an infinitive verb.


PMEG says that "por" is needed to express intention. He doesn't include it in the PMEG, but you will catch Bertilo (the author of the PMEG) also using the "in order to" test described elsewhere in this thread. Note that there are sentences where this test will mislead you (Bertilo's example is "mi havas taskon por fari") but if you can say "in order to" then you do need "por."


That translation is now accepted.


Why is it not "irOs"?


With more context it could be.

  • Tonight we are going to Blippi for dinner.
  • Cxi-vespere ni iros al Blippi por vespermangxo.

Then again, with a dfferent context, it couldn't be.

  • Bye Mom - we are going to Blippi for dinner.
  • Gxis Panjo - ni iras al Blippi por vespermangxo.


I don't understand your question. What is the sentence you're looking at? What could it be other than "mangxi"?


Why isn't it Mangxas I mean.


The verb forms that en in S are only used as the main verb of a sentence or complete clause.

  • 1783

Why is there no accusive?


On restoracio? You'll never see an accusative with al.

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