1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Adamo ĉiam ŝutas multe da su…

"Adamo ĉiam ŝutas multe da sukero en sian teon."

Translation:Adamo always pours a lot of sugar into his tea.

July 25, 2015



I thought 'his' was 'lia'


Sia is the reflexive pronoun used in sentences like this one.

Say Adamo had a friend whose name was Jack:

Adamo ŝutas multe da sukero en lian teon. = Adamo pours a lot of sugar into his (Jack's) tea.

Adamo ŝutas multe da sukero en sian teon. = Adamo pours a lot of sugar into his (own) tea.


Then what is the reflexive form of sxia? E.g. if Sofia were to pour some sugar into her own or her friend Ana's tea - what would the respective descriptions of those acts look like in Esperanto?


It is still "sia" and looks exactly the same as for "lia" and "ilia".


Is there a word for one's own, or is that it?


Why does multe take the adverbial form? It seems that "a lot" would be a quantity rather than a quality and would therefore take the nominative ending, ie "multo da".

I could even see it be an adjective describing the following amount. But then it should be "multa da", no?


Well "a lot", "much", "little" are adverbs in English too. By the way there is no such thing as an "adverbial" case as opposed to the "nominative" case. Adverbs are invariable, therefore by definition lack any case ending. When adjectives are used to complete or describe a verb instead of a noun they become adverbs. So "The quick man acts quickly" or "I speak a lot". "Much sugar" is indeed an adjective but just like English prefers the adverb + preposition construction a lot + of so Esperanto allows for the adverb + preposition multe + da.

If made into an adjective then multa wouldn't need the da: it would be adamo sxutas multan sukeron.


Even if "multe da" is the most popular form, you can also say "multo da". "Adamo ĉiam ŝutas multon da sukero en sian teon" is a correct alternative (as "multan sukeron").


Pour isn't VERSXI?


That's for liquid only.


What I'm most confused about is the object of the sentence. He's pouring sugar yeah into his tea but it's sugar that is being poured. So why is tea the direct object?


Tea isn't the direct object. The accusative is being used to indicate motion: into instead of in. The object is multe da sukero, and since objects of prepositions that don't indicate motion cannot be followed by the accusative ending (in this case da), sukero does not become sukeron.


Can ŝuti be translated as "put" in sentences like this? I find that the only time I use the word 'pour' with non-liquids is when the act of pouring is happening as I'm speaking (so present progressive/continuous). If I'm not speaking in the continuous, then I would be much more inclined to say "Adam always puts a lot of sugar in/into his tea."

Edit: 5 months later and I have no idea why I asked this question. I no longer require an answer since I would actually use both pour and put interchangeably in this instance but can understand if they don't want to accept put as an answer.


Why "en"? Why not "al"?


Why cannot Adamo be a girl... I wrote "her own tea" but not accepted...


Because she would be teased at school for her manly name!


While we're here, could I ask why Esperanto has separate words for pouring liquids and non-liquids? I understand (for example) da/de, but this seems like taking separation of meaning to the extreme.


Why not "... pours plenty of sugar ..."?


The grammar of this sentence might make more sence if you translate it as: Adam muchly pours some sugar toward the inside of his own tea. The "toward" is the reason why "sian" & "teon" get the N's at the end; HOWEVER it still does not explain why "sukero" does NOT get an N at the end to indicate that it is the direct object. Please help me understand what's up with the N-less sukero!

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