"La soldatoj detruis la tutan urbon, inkluzive la palacon."

Translation:The soldiers destroyed the whole city, including the palace.

July 19, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Again, what's the deal with adverbs in this lesson?

Here's some examples:

Jen la detruo fare de la musoj. Inkluzive de la infanoj, ni estis dek ok gastoj. La soldatoj detruis la tutan urbon, inkluzive la palacon.

In each of these sentences, we're presented with an adverb that - unless I missed it - is not being used according to the rules that we've been already been taught. And to top it off, there's nothing in this lesson's notes to explain why we're seeing these variations.

What's the deal with "fare de la musoj?" Why not a participle here? What's the deal with the "de" in "Inkluzive de la infanoj?"

The only sentence that really makes sense to me in all these is the present sentence - "..., inkluzive la palacon.," but the others don't make sense to me.


I'm not sure why they didn't include explanations of this in a Tips Notes section. I suggest you weigh in on the Tips Notes Correction thread (https://www.duolingo.com/comment/8908358).

Section 7.3 of the Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko does touch on this, but it doesn't really offer a lengthy explanation, nor corollaries in English. However, if you'd like to take a look, here's a link: http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/frazpartoj/e-vortaj_frazpartoj.html

In practice you can consider many of these to be condensed, or more conversational, forms of what you already know:

  • Jen la detruo fare de la musoj = Jen la detruo farita de la musoj
  • La soldatoj detruis la tutan urbon, inkluzive la palacon = La soldatoj detruis la tutan urbon inkluzivinte la palacon.

Sometimes an adverb modifies a whole clause rather than a verb. One example:

  • Parenteze, li ne volas iri al la kuracisto = By the way, he does not want to go to the doctor.

Literally, "In parentheses: He doesn't want to go the the doctor".

Another, slightly more complex sentence is "Inkluzive de la infanoj, ni estis dek ok gastoj" which they translated as: "Including the children we were eighteen guests."

(One might expect this to follow the form above regarding the soldiers, but here the only verb is "esti" so "infanoj" doesn't take the accusative.) The clause "ni estis dek ok gastoj" is modified by the adverb "inkluzive", which is itself qualified by "de la infanoj". But that explanation is cumbersome. Compare the original sentence with this more literal translation:

"Inkluzive de la infanoj, ni estis dek ok gastoj" = "With the inclusion of the children, we were eighteen guests."

You could, of course, rephrase this: "Inkluzivante la infanojn, ni nombris dek ok gastojn inter ni" (Including the children, we counted eighteen guests among us.)

Is that clear as mud? ;)


see, this is what im looking for...ive been searching for explanation about adverbs, and even the history of how the usage evolved, but all i get are tidbits here and there...im sure this is just selection bias on my part, maybe once im a little more comfortable in esperanto ill find an article about it in the language.


I'm glad you find my layman's explanation helpful. If you want a more grammatical explanation, there are some textbooks and reference manuals out there. When I was first learning, I got a lot of use out of Step by Step in Esperanto by Montagu C. Butler.


See PMEG 7.3. There is a lot of variation in how adverbs can be used; I suspect it's largely a result of rather haphazard borrowing of idioms from various languages.

I certainly agree that this should be explored at length in lesson notes!


Kind of surprised that the word for soldier isn't something like Militisto or Militanto


Militistoj estas soldatoj kaj oficiroj


Why would total not be be accepted in place of whole?


You'd never say "the soldiers destroyed the total city" in normal English.


An alternante translation would be "the soldiers totaled the whole city" or "the soldiers totaled the entire city".

Totaled ≈ destroyed :D

I don't know if "total" is related to this "totaled" or if it is it's own root word in English :b


That isn't what totaled means. When you total a car, it means that you damaged it so badly that the price of repairing it is higher than the price of buying a new one. It comes from the term 'total loss.'


The ≈ symbol I like to use means (to me) "roughly equal but not truly" or "it's in the same ballpark but not the same game" :D

So does the term "totaled" only refer to vehicles (mainly personal)? Or is it anything that gets destroyed? Or is it destruction with some strong force (like two cars colliding)? Or is it any personal property?

Grandegan Dankon al vi! :)

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