I thought "Ŝiaj" is plural while "her" is singular? Obviously english doesn't have a feminine "their" but isn't that then the closest?
"Ŝiaj" shows that the owner is singular (ŝi-) but the thing owned is plural (-aj).
English just uses one form "her" regardless of whether the thing owned is singular or plural, but Esperanto makes a distinction.
Esperanto, like English, does not make a gender distinction for a plural owner, but even there, the word will be "ilia" if the thing owned is singular (ilia domo = their house - one house which belongs to several males, several females, or a group of males and females together) and "iliaj" if the things owned are plural (iliaj libroj = their books - it could be that all the books each belong to all of them, or each person has one book, or each person has several books that belong only to them but not to anyone else, or some books belong to multiple people while others just to one person each, etc.).
I think it adds the 'j' not because her is being made plural, but because it is her parents (making 'her' an adjective). If parents is plural, her is made plural as well to show that her belongs to parents.....I THINK....... mi komecanto ankau
As a general comment re Esperanto using adjectival and pronomial agreement - many languages clearly demonstrate that this it unnecessary for comprehension. It is one of the few place that Esperanto needlessly complicates things. The only argument for it is to allow for a freer word order but it seems Esperanto has now settled into a fairly standard word order - namely: adjective then noun
Perhaps we should start dropping adjectival agreement in protest. : )
Because Usono is simply a name which is definite by itself, not a common noun like "states" that needs to be made definite by adding "the".
So, for the same reason that it's not "the Canada" or "the Mexico", for example -- English essentially uses "the" only for country names that with a common noun such as "Kingdom" (the United Kingdom), "Republic" (the Czech Republic), "Union" (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics = the USSR) or "States" (the United States).
"Usono" may have come from "Unuiĝintaj Ŝtatoj de Nord-Ameriko" (though it's not clear to me why it would not be "Uŝono" in that case), but as it is now, it's simply a name, and names are always definite by themselves.
So confusing; it says Usono is translated as USA and America but they are different things, first is a country and the other is a continent.
True. Or two continents, depending on how you count.
However, "America" (in English) is sometimes used to refer specifically to the USA, e.g. "my friend here is from America" would usually be understood as meaning specifically from the USA, not from (say) Ecuador or Canada, which also lie in the Americas.
In Esperanto, "Usono" only refers to the country between Canada and Mexico.
"United States of America". So it might be geographically incorrect to call "America" just the country but I think is the same way we use when we say "Mexico" instead of "United States of Mexico" (Estados Unidos Mexicanos), the official name of Mexico.
That word is not in common use among English speakers to refer to the United States of America.
You'd probably have a better chance of asking for "u" to be accepted in place of "you" -- far more people use that "word" than use "Usonia", I would imagine.
America is a continent, not a country. Per example, I am brazilian, I live in South America, so I am an american too. So "loĝas en Amerika" should be a wrong answer.
In English (US English, at least) "America" is often used to mean only the US. Not everyone uses it that way, but it is standard useage. Take the way certain presidents of the US use it. :)
In English, American is from the US and a continent. Quit trying to change it. It's not going to happen.
This is a course on Esperanto. Esperanto treats America and the USA as the majority of languages do, of which, English is not a part.
The -j is a plural marker. Basically, when a noun is plural or an adjective is describing a plural noun.
siaj refers to something that belongs to the subject as the sentence. As such, it can never be the subject or part of the subject.
The subject of ...loĝas en Usono is the parents. So siaj gepatroj would mean "the parents' parents"... but then that's the subject, add siaj and you get "the parents' parents' parents"... but then ....
Bottom line: you can't use si or sia or siaj in the subject.