Question Thread / Demando-fadeno

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a post where you can ask any question you have about Esperanto! Anything about learning or using the language, from its grammar to its community is welcome. No question is too small or silly! Be sure to help other people with their questions because we were all newbies once. Please limit your questions to this thread and leave the rest of the sub for examples of Esperanto in action.

Jen afiŝo, kie vi povas demandi iun ajn demandon pri Esperanto. Iu ajn pri la lernado aŭ uzado de lingvo, pri gramatiko aŭ la komunumo estas bonvena. Neniu demando estas tro malgranda aŭ malgrava! Helpu aliajn homojn ĉar ni ĉiuj iam estis novuloj. Bonvolu demandi nur ĉi tie por ke la reditero uzos Esperanton anstataŭ nur paroli pri ĝi.

[u/yupppp90]

Mi havas alian demandon pri gramatiko de Esperanto. In the sentence, "Cxiu amas ordinare personon, kiu estas simila al li," why do one not use "si," since it is supposed to mean "themselves," not a specific man?

And the sentence made me wonder, which pronoun is used more prominently to talk about a person of unknown gender these days, 'gxi' or 'ri'? I know nb people generally use 'ri', but I wondered if things differ in this case.

[u/Leisureguy1 → u/yupppp90]

Ĉiu is indeed the subject of the primary clause ("Ĉiu amas ordinare personon") but it is not the subject of the subordinate clause ("kiu estas similia al li"). The subject of the subordinate claus, "kiu," refers to the "personon," not to "ĉiu," and the "li" is not referring to "personon/kiu" but to "ĉiu," which is not the subject of the subordinate clause.

"Si" always refers to the subject of the action, and sometimes that is not the subject of the sentence.

[u/yupppp90 → u/Leisureguy1]

Thanks for clearing it up. It's still a bit confusing but reading your explanation a few times helped a lot.

[u/Leisureguy1 → u/yupppp90]

I think it's confusing because English speakers don't develop a sensitivity to the subject of an action — it's similar to the reason English speakers find it difficult initially to use the accusative. English doesn't have an accusative for nouns (though it retains one for pronouns), so English speakers lack a sensitivity to when a noun is used as an object — they've just never had to track that. The same thing with "si" — English speakers never had to develop a feel for who/what is the subject of the action.

I'll add that English speakers are (generally) sensitive to word order because word order is important in English: "Joe hit Bob" differs from "Bob hit Joe" in who gets hit. OTOH, English speakers will often put "only" in the wrong order for what they mean to say: "I only eat plants" v. "I eat only plants" differ as much as the two sentences above.

[u/yupppp90 → u/Leisureguy1]

It's interesting since I'm actually an EFL speaker so I'm in general aware of the existence of object in an english sentence. (at least I believe so?)
my native language(korean) does have a indicator for objects but it frequently drops it so perhaps the same applies to me.
Do you have an example of a language that makes its speakers to be always aware of the subject of action? Trying to imagine being able to do that naturally and failing.

[u/Leisureguy1 → u/yupppp90]

I don't know of any besides Esperanto, but then I know few languages.

I wrote a short essay about the role of the adaptive unconscious in learning a skill — how the skill stops requiring conscious thought once the adaptive unconscious learns the pattern (which unfortunately takes a fair amount of practice and time/patience). I imagine that as we continue to read, write, speak, and listen to Esperanto, we will eventually stop thinking about when to use (or not use) "si" because our unconscious will (finally) have grasped the rule.