"Tio mankis al mi."

Translation:I missed that.

August 1, 2015

This discussion is locked.


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.


And italian. Where it's mancare


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")


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.

  • 702

What about not hearing what someone said? Could it be used in that way? The speaker spoke unclearly or too fast and, wanting them to repeat it, you say, "sorry, I missed that." Does "Tio mankis al mi" work in that context?


I would say - mi ne aŭdis tion - but if you've aimed for something and failed to hit it, you would say "mi maltrafis tion."


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?" Ĉu mi mankis al vi?


Sounds good to me.


that (subject) missed (whom?) me


Would 'Mi maltrafis tion' work as well?


I'm guessing that "trafi" means "to hit" and so you're going for the other sense of "miss" in English.


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


I said, "That missed me." Is there a rule here that I am forgetting?


It's not so much a rule, but the meaning of manki that needs to be clarified.

Manki is often glossed "to be missing/lacking" -- so it's not "that missed me" but "that was missing to me" -- or in normal English -- I was missing that.

Or in simple past - I missed that.

Not that "I missed that" here is in the sense "I lacked that" or "I felt the loss of that" -- not "I tried to hit that and failed."


Can i translate it as "that was missing to me"? It marks me as wrong when i do


Why isn't "That was missing to me" accepted? I know it's not colloquial, but it's still correct right?


why not: Mi mankis tion?


Because that's not how mankas works.

For more info, see my other comments and LouisSepdekDu's comments in this thread.


Wouldn't that mean that missed me?

EDIT: saw the "min" too, not sure if you can use it without al


Sincerely, no. The construction is simply different between Esperanto and English (X mankas al Y ≈ Y misses X). I think Christa627 explained it here quite well but since you certainly read this discussion before posting an objection she obviously couldn't convince you.

I am, however, confident that Salivanto's arguments (see: that's not how mankas works) might convince you.

So, of course, I will delete my present comment shortly. Happy learning!

Edit: I promised to delete my comment but since MarkusKlyver replied to it just a few minutes later I cannot, or else I would delete her/his comment, too. So I just ask any potential readers to just ignore it.


I think Duolingo might be bugged out then, this is the only thread I see. (on mobile right now).

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