"Mi sidas ĉe la tablo."

Translation:I am sitting at the table.

July 11, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Cxe is from the french 'chez', no doubt. I wonder if it has the same flexibility.


Indeed it reminds the french "chez" but we use it only to talk about a person not a object . "chez toi, chez un ami, chez le docteur..." To me it's weird to use ĉe with the word table ( je suis assis à table) . I need to learn the exact meaning of the esperanto ĉe.


My thoughts exactly


And it itself comes from Latin "casa" (in the ablative), so "at the house (of)". Grammaticalization!

Also, since the English wiktionary says it forms the locative case and given the number of translations French wiktionary gives (https://fr.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C4%89e don't remember how to put an imbedded link), you can bet it's even more flexible (yay!)


So if i am sitting at the table then it is okay to use "Ĉe la tablo". BUT if my grandparents are sitting at the table then only "Apud la tablo" is accepted as a correct answer!!! I am confused right now! More people sit next to the table and not at?? This language getting even worse than german...


Don't be so critical, it's unbecoming. The point of either sentance was to show you the meaning and usage.

Think about a nightstand or bookstand, it can also be referred to as a "table" of sorts. Grandparents whom are reading next to the table would be referred to with "Apud". However, if they were sitting at a dining table, then one would use "ĉe". It does not matter whom is sitting where, but there is a difference between "next to" and "at". For one, It's impossible for a cat to sit "at/ĉe" a dog, but it is possible for a cat to sit "next to/apud" a dog.


because ĉe means on as well, so one could be sitting on the table or at the table?


No, cxe is "at", with an idea of close proximity (it can also mean "at someone's place", and it is the equivalent of a locative case, contrary to apud, which is equivalent to the cross-linguistically rare case of apudessive, and just means "next to", with an idea more or less remote closeness). Sur is "on": one object is physically above the other and is touching it (just "above" is super)... Unless I'm totally mistaken?


What is the difference between "on" and "at" the table? (english is not my native language)


In English, to sit "on" the table would be to literally sit on top of it, not at a seat.


But is there any case which shows clearly distinctive role of those two prepositions? Because I'm getting confused as well. Up to now Esperanto looked pretty clear and regular, so if "apud" can be used for both of the two cases you have mentioned and the sentence still can be easily understood, what is the reason for adding another extra word for it?


There's an "extra word", because they have two different meanings. This is simply demonstrating how it's used. Zamenhof made a lot of things similar to English. Both "ĉe" (at) and "apud" (by/next to) are used in the same ways they are used in English, and in English, it is OK to say "I sit by the table" and "I sit at the table". They just denote different things. I'm seriously not sure how anyone could get this mixed up. If you know English, then you should already know how to use these two words for their respective forms.


I'm not that good in English when it goes about prepositions, so I was confused a bit (e.g. in Slovak we can use same word for both of this meanings and it'd be still correct). But I think I get it know, thank you.


Duolingo's database is incomplete -- that's all there is to it. You can help it out by submitting answers you believe to be correct by flagging them as correct.

Doing so well help out not only Duolingo, but users who come after you.


Is there a difference between this and "Mi sidas sur la tablo"?


"Sur" means "on (top of)". It would mean that you're sitting on the table like a chair.


Nun mi komprenas, dankon

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