"She is drinking a glass of white wine."
Translation:Ŝi trinkas glason da blanka vino.
The notes explain that de is possession, da is quantity. For example, "Taso da teo" means a cup of tea, as in a quantity of tea, whereas "Taso de teo" means a cup owned by tea, which is nonsense.
Hope this helps!
It doesn't have to be possession.
"Taso de teo" could be a teacup, for example: a cup used for tea. (It's still a teacup even if it's empty, as opposed to a cup of tea.)
Does "Ŝi trinkas glason da blanka vino" also mean "She drinks a glass of white wine"?
If so, is there a strict difference between the indicative and the progressive?
Yes, it could also mean that.
You can make a strictly progressive tense in Esperanto but it's not that common - usually, the simple present is used whether we would use simple present or present continuous in English.
(Similarly with the simple past in Esperanto versus pluperfect, simple past, or past continuous in English, often even present perfect.)
Five seconds ago ,when I used 'trinkas' instead of 'trinkanta' for the word 'drinking' it was considered wrong....but not here. What is up with the inconsistencies?
Ŝi trinkas = she drinks, she is drinking
Ŝi estas trinkanta = she is drinking (stresses the fact that it is an ongoing action, but unlike in English, this form is not required)
Ŝi trinkanta, Ŝi estas trinki, Ŝi estas trinkas = simply wrong
I knew that it was possible to write "Sxi estas trinkanta" or "Sxi estas trinkante" for "She is drinking" and avoid confusions with "She drinks"
I understand that da is used for quantities. But I don't understand why a glass is a measure of quantity
Would it be more helpful to translate it as "glassful"?
A spoonful of medicine, a glassful of wine.
Wouldn't "Ŝi trinkas la vino blanka" and "Ŝi trinkas la blanka vino" both be correct? I will report it either way, I just want to know
No; they are both wrong.
Firstly, you are missing "glass", so this is not a translation of the above sentence; and if you want to say "She is drinking the white wine" without "glass", you need to use the accusative (Ŝi trinkas la blankan vinon / la vinon blankan).
Shouldn't there be an -n affix to "vino" if not also "blanka"? My logic is saying the glass isn't being drank, but the wine as well?
No, there should not -- because blanka vino comes after the preposition da, and prepositions take the nominative case (with only a handful of exceptions).
Depends on whom you ask :)
Some people use it, some don't.
My impression is that it's very uncommon, and that the sort of people who use it tend to be people who want to play with the language.
People who use the language every day and for whom the novelty of "this cool language that allows you to build your own words" has worn off probably stick to more traditional patterns.
I'd recommend that you not use it. Because it is less common, it will draw attention to the word itself and not to the message you are trying to convey.
A bit, perhaps, as if you said "Drinking is she a glass of white wine"... which is probably grammatically correct English, but unusual word order and so may take a little longer to understand, whereas the more conventional "She is drinking a glass of white wine" will be understood quickly and effortlessly.
Ĝuste la frazo devas esti skibita tiel 'Ŝi drinkas glason da blanka vino.' sed ne 'trinkas', ĉar vino estas alkoholo. mi certas pri tio. :P
You can trinki alcohol as well as drinki it -- you don't have to use drinki just because the object is alcohol.
As PIV puts it, drinki is "Plezurcele trinki alkoholaĵojn en nemodera kvanto" (drink alcoholic drinks for pleasure in immoderate quantities).
So if you drink a moderate quantity, you're just trinki-ing it, not drinki-ing it. And for many people, a glass of wine is a moderate quantity.