Translation:My grandparents always sit at home at the table.
Out of curiosity, why not? What's different about this situation than the use of "hejme" to mean "at home" earlier in the sentence?
My understanding (as a komencanto :-)) is that when you adverbize (or adjectivize) a noun like this, it translates to something like "of or relating to [noun]"; is that a correct understanding?
Is the reason "table" can't be used as an adverb here that the "adverb slot" for the one verb in the sentence is already taken by "hejme"? Or can verbs take multiple adverbs?
It has to do with the meaning of the roots and the traditional usage surrounding them. Hejme is understood to mean en la propra hejmo but that doesn't mean that table is understood to mean en la propra tablo - and even if it were, it still wouldn't mean what we would need it to mean here.
It's not so much unlike another language you and I both know:
- I am home (= I am at home / in my home)
- I am table (=?)
I used the following which was accepted:
My grandparents always sit home next to the table.
I thought that if you'd be sitting at the table, you'd write "Mi sidas ĉe la tablo" and I thought that "apud" meant "next to".
If that's so, then why is the first translation this?
My grandparents always sit at home at the table.