1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Tio mankis al mi."

"Tio mankis al mi."

Translation:I missed that.

August 1, 2015



This is such a French structure! Even the verb sounds like "manquer"!


In German we had that structure too, but the verb sounds very different.


What does this sentence mean?


Literally, "That was lacking/missing to me"; in more colloquial English "I missed that" (in the sense of feeling lacking, as in "I miss you!"), or "I was lacking that" (didn't have it when I needed it).

"Mi bezonis monon por iri al Francujo. Sed tio mankis al mi." (I needed money to go to France. But that was lacking to me [I didn't have any of that].)

"Kiam mi vojagxis, mi memoris la karesojn de mia patrino. Tio mankis al mi." (When I was travelling, I remembered the caresses of my mother. That was missing to me [I missed that].)


Could you instead phrase it: "Mi mankis tion"?


i dont think it works like that, since it has the same structure as french, maybe it is something like the verb "gustar" in spanish , saying "tu me gustas" doesn't mean "you like me" but rather "i like you"


The Italian "mancare" works the same way. Since the Esperanto "manki" shares the same root, I'd imagine it works the same way. "Mi mankas al vi" means "You miss me" (lit: "I am missing to you")


that (subject) missed (whom?) me


Could this mean "That was lost to me", i.e. "That went over my head", or does it literally mean that you were missing an object?


It can mean a literal object, or something more abstract, but the basic idea is not having something, or feeling a lack of something. So "That went over my head" isn't really the idea; one would say things like "mankas al mi tempo" (I don't have time), "mankas al mi mono" (I don't have [enough] money), or "mankas al mi mia amiko" (I miss my friend). It's quite a versatile construction, and pretty cool once you get used to it :-).

Edit: the word order is flexible: "tio mankis al mi", "mankis al mi tio", "al mi tio mankis", and "al mi mankis tio" all mean the same thing; the difference is merely stylistic.


I'm still confused on the accusative form. Why is it not 'tion'? Thanks in advance :)


Because "tio" is the subject


But isn't it the thing being missed/lacked?


Yes, it's the thing "mankanta". The English is not logical about its use of "to miss". If you miss something, it's because the thing is missing.


How do I ask "did you miss me?" ─łu mi mankis al vi?


Sounds good to me.


Would 'Mi maltrafis tion' work as well?


It wouldn't mean the same thing but, out of context, it's a possible translation.

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