1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Is that a real rose?"

"Is that a real rose?"

Translation:Ĉu tio estas vera rozo?

July 6, 2015



i need a clear explanation of why ¨tiu¨ is not used here. It sure seems that one is pointing to a specific rose.... Thanks miz & Vik.


Because the point is not whether "that" semantically (by meaning) refers to a rose, but whether it grammatically (by position etc.) modifies the word "rozo" in that sentence.

In this case, it stands by itself grammatically; it's a pronoun. It is not "that rose" but simply "that", by itself.

And the demonstrative pronoun for objects is "tio".

  • Tio estas bela.

  • Kio estas tio?

  • Tio estas rozo.

  • Tiu rozo estas bela.


Aaah, the importance of differentiating verda and vera ...

Oh, well, hopefully that made me memorise it.


I really must get my eyes tested. I read it as "Is that a real nose?"


Is vera correct here? Wouldn't reala be more appropriate? It is an actual rose, not a truthful one.


It is a genuine rose, not an existing one :)

vera is also Ne ŝajna, ne falsita, ne imitita, aŭtentika.

reala would insist that you're not just imaging it, or that it's a real-world one rather than an idealised perfect one.


Because esti is not a transitive verb that takes a direct object in the accusative case.

It's a linking verb or copula, linking a subject to a predicate -- and predicates like that are in the nominative case in Esperanto (no -n).


Isn't the literal translation "Is that a true rose?" Maybe it should be "Ĉu tio estas natura rozo?" Anyway, why would you want a natural rose when fake ones last longer ;-)

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