parol = speak (idea-word)
parolas = speaks (Present-Tense verb)
parolanto = speaker (PT noun; person speaking)
parolato = speakee (PT noun; person being spoken to)
aĉetanto = a buyer. a (noun) that is buying something.
aĉetato = a buyee, a purchase. a (noun) that is being bought by someone.
pluv = rain (idea-word)
pluva = rain's, rainy, (pluvial)
pluvante = when raining. The rain itself is doing an action.
pluvate = when being rained on. Something is inflicted with "rain".
Remember that you can be a "speaker" or "writer" (in present tense) even if you're not speaking or writing at this very moment.
A (present), NT or T, A (adjective):
parolanta kato; kato parolanta (present-tense adjective)
= a talking cat; a cat that is speaking
parolata kato; kato parolata (present-tense adjective)
= a talkee cat; a cat that is being spoken to
I (past tense), NT or T, E (adverb):
parolinte = when (he, they, it...) spoke
parolite = when (he, they, it...) were spoken to
lundinte = having been Monday
lundite = having been afflicted with Monday (”having had a case of the Mondays”)
U (hypothetical), NT or T, A (adverb):
aĉetunta kato; kato aĉetunta = a cat that would have bought (something)
aĉetuta kato; kato aĉetuta = a cat that would have been bought (by someone else)
manĝunta homo; homo manĝunta
= a would-be eater
= a person who would eat
manĝuta homo; homo manĝuta
= a would-be eatee
= a person who would have been eaten (by someone or something else)
The following type of form is never used by the average person, but it can be useful when writing fiction, teaching foreign languages, or needing to save space in text messaging, chatrooms etc. You can use the below forms if you want, there are no restrictions against them. Just know that some people won't understand them because they're not very good at Esperanto grammar.
Time vowel, NT or T, time vowel, S (verb):
aĉetintus = having been the (noun) that would purchase
manĝantos = being the (noun) that is going to eat
skribuntis = would be the (noun) that had written
= I am the one who wrote
mi legontos; legontos mi = I will be the one who is going to read.
Time vowel, NT or T, I (verb without tense):
parolati = to be being talked to
= to be the one that someone is talking to
skribinti = to be the one who wrote
= to have been the writer
Most of the time, NT and T forms go completely unused. The simple form always works in normal, easy conversation. We can say "skribintus" (was the one who would write), or "bluanta kato" (a cat that is being blue), but most people simply write "skribus, blua kato" to mean the same thing instead.
Always remember, normal conversation in Esperanto is about adjusting yourself to fit the level of the person you are speaking to. If you know that they understand, or if you don't care if they don't understand, then you can write in any way you want. Otherwise, write in simple language. Many people make the mistake of thinking that "speaking simply" means "speaking exactly like everyone else". This is never true. In fact, most people write in a more difficult way than they should to learners, so you shouldn't copy them.
Two participles at once:
aĉet = buy. antaŭ = before. ĝu = enjoy.
a (noun) that is being bought before it is going to be enjoyed
= a before-hand purchase (ex. buying a movie ticket when you're going to watch the movie one week later).
Again, sometimes which tense to use is just according to your own opinion:
lern = learn (idea word)
lernanto = a (noun) that is learning
= a student, learner (pupil); computer AI, etc.
lernato = a (noun) that is "having learning done to it"
= a (noun) that is receiving learning or being taught
= a student, learner, (pupil)
Both mean exactly the same thing in the end, unless context says otherwise. Differences like these will always appear when reading and listening to other people's Esperanto. For example, you will think a "sell-place" is a place to sell your own items (a pawn shop), but another person will think it's a "place that sells items; a place that has items for sale" (a grocery store). Again, in context such differences aren't confusing.
In English, we say "rain is falling". The rain itself is doing the action of falling. Otherwise, we say "it is raining" — what is this mysterious "it"? It's possibly a placeholder for the word "water", as in "water is raining down from the sky".
Esperanto can say "water is raining down" and "rains, raining" but it does not say "it rains".
pluvas = rains; is raining; it's raining
Likewise, we say "it's hot out". What's this mysterious "it's"? Likely the sentence really means "the weather is hot outside (my house)". Esperanto says either "The weather is hot", "is hot", or "hots", but not "it's hot".
Most languages don't say "it's" like this, and neither does Esperanto. If you make a mistake on this you'll still be understood, so don't worry about it. It's amazing how many mistakes you can make in Esperanto grammar and word-choice and still be understood!
This means "until x is reached or attained". It only goes after -O, -A or -E.
mi batas lin = i hit (until was attained) he
= i hit him; i was hitting him
mi parolas lin = i talk (until my words reach) he
= i talk to him; i am talking to him
mi iras domen = i go (until is attained) location house
= i go until the house is reached
= i go to the house. right up to it, perhaps even inside it.
mi iras trans la straton = i go across (until is reached) the street
= i cross the street
Now, here is the difference between having N and not:
mi iras trans la strato
= i am walking on the other side of the street. i'm not actually crossing it to get to the other side.
mi iras dome = i go location house
= i go around inside the house. i'm not going until i "reach" the house, so i must already have reached it earlier!
mi saltas sur la liton = i jump (until is reached) on the bed
= i jump onto the bed, from somewhere else that is not the bed.
mi saltas sur la lito = i jump on the bed
= i jump up and down on the bed. i'm not jumping to "reach" the bed so i must be already on it.
mi manĝas la
manĝas katon; katon manĝas
= eats (until is attained) a cat
= eats a cat.
The cat is the "manĝato", the eatee, the thing being eaten.
manĝas kato; kato manĝas
= a cat eats.
The cat is the "manĝanto", the eater, the thing doing the eating.
Mi manĝas katon = I eat a cat. I'm eating a cat.
La kato estas la manĝato = The cat is the eatee.
Min manĝas kato = A cat eats me. A cat is eating me.
La kato estas la manĝanto = The cat is the eater.
mi iras katon; mi katon iras; iras mi katon; iras katon mi
= i go (until is reached) a cat
= i go to the cat
irata kato; kato irata
= a cat that "is being gone to"
= a cat that someone or something is travelling towards
Mi iris tien
= I went (until was reached) there
= I went thither. I went to that place.
Mi iris tie
= I went there
= I walked around when already being there.
Pluvo falas la teron
= Rain falls (until is reached) the ground/earth/dirt.
= Rain falls to the ground.
Pluvo falas teren
= Rain falls (until is reached) location ground
= Rain falls to the ground.
= Rainfalls (until is reached) location ground
= Rain falls to the ground
Pluvas tere =
1. Location, Time: Rains on, at, in or when "earth".
2. Method: Rains earth (literally, raining dirt).
dormas vintre = sleeps in winter
dormas vintren = sleeps until winter is reached (the opposite of hibernation)
manĝas ĝardene = eats at, in, on, etc. a garden
manĝas ĝardenen = eats one's way to a garden
manĝas ĝardeno = a garden eats (something)
manĝas ĝardenon = (something) eats a garden
This may seem complicated or confusing, but it gets easier with time.
The section we just learned is the most difficult aspect in Esperanto, and in most languages in general, for English native speakers. It's called "accusative case" in most language textbooks; "whom case" in Faroese, and so forth.
Whom did you talk to?
Kiun parolis ci? (kiu = who)
Kies (Kiua) hundo?
Here = ĉi tie
Hither ("come hither! come to this place!") = ĉi tien
When the word looks too confusing, - or ' can be put as a separator: hund-domo, hund'domo
' is normal in language textbooks of all kinds, and was also used in the first Esperanto books. Meanwhile, - is used by the average person, but | is used in Russia, • is used in Japanese etc. There is no rule for which one you have to use, and the same is true for all punctuation ("sentence-marks"): Use whatever you want!
Capitalizing words is similar. There's only three rules:
— Capitalize the first word of a place or title (ex. book title). "The catcher in the rye" is just as fine as "The Catcher In The Rye".
— Last names should be in all capitals. This is because different languages put the family name first, while we in English put the family name last. Thus, "Adolf HITLER" or "HITLER Adolf". When it's clear that it's a last name for whatever reason (such as you having already made it clear before), then you don't need to do it.
— The beginning of a new sentence should be capitalized.
In reality however, the rules above (and things Zamenhof constantly states in his writings about Esperanto) suggest this:
Anything's fine as long as the other person understands what you're talking about. If you put quotes around the book title ("the catcher in the rye" then there's no need to capitalize anything. If you have a period/full stop, or an exclamation mark, then you don't have to capitalize the beginning of the next sentence (because it's already clear that it's a new sentence).
Capitalizing place names is just most names are borrowed from other languages and thus don't fit in with Esperanto grammar. If I say "america", it looks like some unknown adjective in Esperanto. If I say "America", the person has at least some kind of clue — ah, that's the name of something.
However, you can always write this: america-o, america-e and so forth to make it clear that it's a name, a place or time, etc.
When to combine or separate words is just done according to your personal judgement. It's best to separate words that end up looking the same, or that end up seeming too confusing, ex:
sen'tema (without a theme; sen = without, tem = theme)
sent'ema (sensitive; sent = feeling, em = tendency)
pal'manoj (pale-hands; pal = pale, man = hand)
palm'anoj (members of palm trees; palm = palm tree, an = member)
In a few cases it doesn't matter whether the word comes in front or behind:
vir = male
bov = bovine (cow)
virbovo = "male-bovine", a bovine that is male.
= a bull
bovviro, bovoviro = a male that is a bovine
= a bull
Both mean exactly the same thing. Which one you choose is just up to personal preference, or if you think one way is easier to pronounce than the other.
NOTE!: "vir" means only "male", and "in" means only "female". What, exactly, is being male or female (a dog, cat, human) isn't included; for that you have to add in another word just as with "virbovo". However, these two words are used as slang to mean "man, woman; boy, girl" and the word "hom - human, person" that should be tacked on, is instead just implied.
Similarly, "ul - a being; a creature" can refer to any being, including dead ones (corpses, ghosts and zombies), and of any type (dogs, humans, bacteria) but it's used as slang to mean "human; guy, gal" and so forth.
Thus while "tiuj uloj - those creatures" is in reality an extremely vague meaning, it's usually going to mean "those guys, those people" because humans just normally talk about other humans.
needs editing past here!!!!
Level two verbs:
Every verb has "to be: is, am, are" built-in. So we can say:
bad'i, to bathe.
— mi bad'as = "I bathe", I am bathing
— mi ruĝ'as = "I reds", I am red
— mi lac'as = "I tireds", I am tired, fatigued, jaded
We can also use a separate verb and then the adjective (a) or adverb (e) form. But the other method is faster and shorter:
— mi estas bade = "I am being in-a-bath-way", I'm having a bath
— mi estas ruĝa = "I am being red"
— mi estas laca = "I am being tired"
Likewise, we can turn other words into verbs where English doesn't:
— ruĝa, red, ruĝ'as, is red, ruĝ'i, to be red, to be a red (thing)
— nokto, a night, nokt'as, is night, nokt'i, to be night-time
— bado, a bathe, ujo, a container, bad'ujo, a bath-tub, bad'uji, "to bath-tub", to be a bath-tub, to take a bath in the bath-tub, to clean the tub, etc. (depending on context)
Note that these verb-forms only mean "is, am, are, am being". Some people mistakenly think that a base verb like this can also mean "becomes, causes to be, forces" but that is only true in cases where the rule "if it's obvious, it doesn't need to be said" is working. Meaning that instead of the base word meaning those things, it's actually that they're simply not saying the full form of the word they mean. So there are quite a few times when you can use this "is being" form together with the n-form to mean "causes, does" for example, because the n clarifies what is going on, but in general it's best to be clear.
In order to say "causes, forces to be" or to make clear that something is the inflictor, we add "-ig-" to right before the end. In order to say "becomes, does on its own" we add -iĝ-. More about this is in the section about suffixes, so here we have only one example:
blanko, a white (thing), whiteness
— blank'as, is white
— blanka estas, estas blanka, is being white, is white
— blank'ig'as, is causing or forcing to be white (white-washes, bleaches, paints white, etc. depending on context)
— blank'iĝ'as, becomes white, is turning white
— blank'iĝ'anto, a person or thing that is becoming white
—blank'ig'e, "white-causingly", in causing to be white
A verb in -as, -is, -os, -us form means both "eats" and "is eating, am eating" depending on context. However we can also say things like "had been eating, would have eaten, would have been eating". Note that such specific wordforms are actually unusual in the world's languages, because most languages think "it's obvious through context", but English has them. We add the word "-ad-" meaning "continuously, to keep on doing, to repeatedly do, to do over and over again, to do routinely, to do as a habit":
blank'is, was white, had been white.
— blank'int'is, had been white
— blank'int'as, has been white
— blank'int'us, would have been white
— blank'ad'is, had been white, had continuously been white (but now that's not the case), had kept on being white
— blank'ad'into, was, or had been, a person or thing which had continuouslly or repeatedly been white
— blank'ad'int'as, is a person or thing who had continuously been white
— blank'int'us, would have been white
This is true for all verbs, and for any other word you want to use it with. However, as stated, most languages do not get so specific, and thus most users of Esperanto also aren't so specific and don't use these long forms. They do end up being useful forms for when teaching other languages, but in normal writing and speaking they're completely unnecessary. "Was white, had been white" both simply mean "are not white right now", after all!
The few rules for word order are thus:
1. Adjectives (a), must come directly before or after the noun (o) that they describe and match. An adverb (e), can't come in-between. For example:
kato, a cat. blua, blue, blue's. blu'as, is blue. lito, a sleeping-bed. lite, in bed, on bed, bed-wise, beddily.
These forms are fine and all mean "a blue cat in bed (a bed for sleeping, not a flowerbed etc.)
— kato blua lite; blua kato lite; lite blua kato; lite kato blua
— kato blua en lito; blua kato en lito; en lito kato blua; en lito blua kato
— kato blua enlite; enlite kato blua
These are not, or at least I don't think they are but I have to go research a bit to refresh my memory:
— kato lite blua (a cat in bed blue)
— blua lite kato (blue in bed a cat)
These sentences mean "a cat is blue in (a) bed":
— kato bluas lite; kato lite bluas; bluas lite kato; bluas kato lite
— kato estas blua en lito; blua estas kato en lito; blua estas kato lite...
2. The word "the" (la) must come directly before the noun (o) it describes, and if the adjective (a) comes before the noun then "the" (la) also comes before that adjective:
— la kato blua; la blua kato ("the blue cat"). These forms are okay.
— kato la blua ("a cat the blue"), blua la kato ("blue the cat"). These forms aren't okay.
3. Small words that don't end in -a, -o, -e, or -s, or that are otherwise exceptions, must always come before the thing they are talking about. "La (the)" is one such example, but it is special in that it's the only word that really shouldn't be compounded to the beginning of the word it relates to. There are a handful of these words, for example "for (away)", "de (of)", and "pri (regarding, concerning, about)", "laŭ (according to, ex. according to someone's opinion)", where the last letter is part of the unchange-able, un-removable root of the word. These little words can stand alone with a space before the word or phrase they relate to, or they can be compounded to the word, but they don't lose any of their letters when compounded. They can go behind the word only when changed into another form, such as with adding -a or -e:
pri, about, concerning, relating to (as in subjects, not as in family members)
— skrib'as, writes, is writing. skribas pri libro, writes about a book.
— pri'skribas libro, writes about a book, describes a book.
— skribas pri'libre, writes "in a way that's concerning a book", writes about a book.
— skribas libro prie, "writes a book aboutly", writes about a book. This form is very possible and certainly isn't against the rules, however most people don't realize they can use it and so it doesn't appear often. It can also make things a little more confusing.
However we cannot say "skribas libro pri", because that would mean "writes a book about...", instead of "writes about a book".
Even though you shouldn't compound "la (the)", you actually can and when doing so you remove the "a", but it's supposed to be only for poetic writing and it's not allowed to be read aloud that way (it should still be read aloud as "la" with the ah-sound). With the examples below, you can imagine how it can look very ugly or confusing, and this is also the only exception in all of Esperanto where a word wouldn't be pronounced exactly as it's written:
— l'kato, the cat. l'libro, the book. l'arbo, the tree. Pronounced as "la kato, la libro, la arbo".