1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Adamo taksas, ke estas danĝe…

"Adamo taksas, ke estas danĝere."

Translation:Adamo considers that it is dangerous.

July 13, 2015



What is the difference between "taksi" and "pensi"?

"Taksi" will be hard for me to remember, it reminds me of "taxi" or "taxes" much more than "to think"...


Not all words in Esperanto correlate to a similar sounding word in English. "Taksi" is one of them, so you'll just have to memorize it. It's meaning is to rate, to appraise, to estimate. "Pensi" is to ponder, to contemplate, to ruminate. Both might be translated as "to think" but their meanings are quite distinct.


After surfing round wiktionary quite a bit (taksi really does mean taxi in quite a lot of languages) I'm pretty sure it's from the  Latin taxō ‎(“I handle, estimate, judge”) and related to words about tax in a number of European languages. For instance: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/taksa


You're on the right track. I would take it a step further and guess that Zamenhof borrowed it directly from German taxieren 'to value, to appraise, to assess'.


Taxi is called taksio.


The use of "taksi" seems quite like the use of "reckon" in Australian English and some kinds of UK English.


US English too, especially in the South.


My impression is that "taksi" is more like an assessment or a valuation. In this sentence Adamo is assessing the risk and concludes that it is dangerous. In Dutch we have the word "taxeren", which means to estimate the value of something e.g. to assess the value of a house or a car.


"Taxi" has exactly the same origin, it's short for Taxameter: Taxi definition from Dictionary.com: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/taxi


wow, the first real breakthrough in trying to explain the origin here, IMHO. I am glad you wrote it. I was about to. Btw, tax/taxes as in the rate-of-income-you-never-see has the same origin, I bet. just my dua cents...


Taksi is like "weighting" something in your mind, it reminds me of the verb "sopesar" in Spanish.


Would this sentence make more sense with "ke ĝi estas"? Or is this sentence completely unambiguous to an Esperanto speaker?


Adamo taksas, ke estas danĝere.

Adamo thinks that it is dangerous, the action or whatever, it is not specified what we're talking about, it is just a general statement, thus without a pronoun.

Adamo taksas, ke ĝi estas danĝera.

Adamo thinks that it is dangerous, here it is a specific it, it might be the spider under his bed or it might be the basilisk standing on his lawn, but it is commonly understood by the speaker and the listener as to what this it refers to.


But what "ĝi"? This "ĝi" should something mean.


I'm asking if the sentence "Adamo taksas, ke ĝi estas danĝere" would be better than "Adamo taksas, ke estas danĝere". Does the "ĝi" in the first sentence clear up an ambiguity or is it understood implicitly in the second?


"Adamo taksas, ke ĝi estas danĝere" is not correct. You could say "Adamo taksas, ke ĝi estas danĝera". And then, the question arises what do you mean by "ĝi".


ĝi has to refer to some object or concept. In English sentence, it doesn't actually refer to anything at all.


Difference between konsideras and taksas, please?


I read this as "Adam thinks that he is dangerous". The the verb always refers to an "it" without a pronoun?


"Adam thinks that he is dangerous" would be "Adamo taksas ke li estas danĝera". Your interpretation is not possible for the given sentence for two reasons, which are both discussed in the thread started by tvoiles (please read vikungen's post).

I don't understand your question: verbs do not really refer to anything. And what do you mean by an "it" without a pronoun?


in the sub clause, or second clause (I don't know the term), 'ke estas dangxere' there is no pronoun, so the subject of the sentence is implied. My question was, why an implied 'it', but not an implied 'he', but I see vikungen has answered my question. Estas on its own is always a general statement, with no pronoun implied, is that correct? In some languages it would be very ambiguous to have a verb without a pronoun, as it could be interpreted as referring to an it, he, she, or even they.


Yes, you understand it correctly: estas without a pronoun always refers to an empty subject (or as it is also called, dummy pronoun 'it').

This means that you cannot drop the pronoun subject in Esperanto, as you do, for example, in Italian or Greek. But that should be clear first of all from the fact that Esperanto verbs don't conjugate...


Why is this an adverb? If "it is dangerous", then dangerous should be an adjective, no? If the sentence was "It was acting dangerously", then I understand the purpose of the adverbial form. Help me clarify please?


When there's no noun to modify, the descriptive word is expressed as an e-word (often called an "adverb.")


Ok, so there is a specific rule regarding this. I thought it was an "exception" or something. So all I have to remember is that when no noun is in the sentence, just use an adverb instead of the adjective.


Kiel oni dirus: "Adam considers that as/to be dangerous"?


Adamo konsideras tion dangxera.


Jes, ne kuras en la bestoĝardeno, estas tre danĝere! (See the places unit...)


estas dangxere iri sole. Prenu tion!


Why doesn't this mean "Adamo considers there to be danger"?


could "taksas" be translated as "supposes"?



Supozi carries the idea of an assumption made.

Taksi carries the idea of an estimation based on facts and experience.


La legado estas nekomprenebla


La frazo estas iom malpreciza, sed tute komprenebla. Oni nur bezonas imagi la kuntekston.


I can understand why the word it does not need to be translated in sentences such as "It is raining", as it does not stand for anything in that sentence, but in this case Adamo must have had something in mind when he spoke about it being dangerous, whether is was something physical (e.g. a shark),

  • Adamo taksas, ke ŝarko estas danĝera

or an activity (e.g. to jump off a cliff),

  • Adamo taksas, ke estas danĝere salti de klifo

In English, we'd represent that something by it, but can that the equivalent always be omitted in Esperanto if the listener knows what is is being talked about, as is presumably assumed to be the case in this sentence?

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