\documentstyle[twocolumn]{article}
\title{An Overview of Esperanto}
\author{Todd C. Moody\\
	Department of Philosophy\\
St. Joesph's University\\
5600 City Ave.\\
Philadelphia, PA 19131}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
 
In fact, this is a quick and fairly complete summary of Esperanto
grammar.  Diligent attention to this material, and practice, should give
the reader a reasonable feel for the language in a a relatively short
time --- an extraordinarily short time, compared to what would be needed
to learn a comparable amount in one of the national languages.  It is
important to point out, however, that although learning Esperanto is
easier than other languages, it is not effortless.  It still takes work
to master it.  In particular, one cannot expect to master {\em spoken}
Esperanto without investing some time in learning new speech patterns;
this is an inevitable fact about language-learning.  On the other hand,
a {\em reading} knowledge of Esperanto should come fairly rapidly.  My
goal here is to exhibit the logical simplicity of Esperanto, and to
motivate readers to further study.  This is in no way intended to
replace a textbook or course.  It is for people who would like to know
how Esperanto works, in general, before they embark on a course of
formal study.  Also, to a limited extent this may serve as a compact
grammatical reference document.

Although I am no grammarian myself, I shall presuppose that the
reader has some familiarity with grammatical terms and concepts.  On the
other hand, I shall try to avoid needless technicality.  Because of its
extreme regularity, Esperanto is a language in which one can make a
considerable amount of headway just by learning its basic grammatical
forms.  In fact, the language was created to be grammatically
``transparent,'' so it pays to take advantage of this.
 
There is one other point that I might as well make now.  Almost anyone
who looks at Esperanto for the first time will be struck by certain
features of the language that appear to be ``needlessly'' complex.  A
common complaint runs something like, "Well, English (or Japanese, or
whatever) gets along perfectly well without this, so why does Esperanto
need it?''

Although I would not claim that Esperanto is perfect (whatever that
might mean), this question does have an answer, at least in many cases.
 The various national languages of the world can get away with a great
deal of streamlining because they are {\em first} languages, spoken by
people who share a common set of presuppositions and expectations about
language.  Esperanto, as a universal {\em second} language, is not so
well placed in this respect; it is meant to be useful to people who
share few such presuppositions and expectations.  It therefore makes
sense for it to have a bit more redundancy built into it.  Even so, it
is a remarkably streamlined language.  If it is not {\em maximally}
streamlined, perhaps this is a small price to pay for effectiveness. 

\section{Brief History} The International language Esperanto was created
by L. L.  Zamenhof, a Polish oculist (1859--1917).  It was first
published in 1887, in the form of a Russian-Esperanto text booklet. 
Incidentally, the name ``Esperanto''---which means ``one who hopes''
---was the pseudonym used by Zamenhof; it was only later used as a name
for the language itself.  Even today, Esperanto is known to many simply
as ``the international language.''
 
Another international language had been developed, prior to Esperanto,
which had a brief popularity.  This language, called ``Volap\"{u}k'',
was invented by a German bishop named Martin Schleyer.  It enjoyed some
popoularity among European intellectuals for a time, but eventually
failed, for a number of reasons.  For one thing, Schleyer regarded
Volap\"{u}k as his personal property, over which he insisted upon
exercising dictatorial control.  This caused friction among enthusiasts
of the language, many of whom saw certain reforms as desirable.  Indeed,
these conflicts had something to do with Zamenhof's decision to publish
his ``internacia lingvo'' anonymously, hoping to avoid the cult of
personality.  Although Zamenhof had no na\"\i ve illusions about an
international language solving all of the problems of the
world,\footnote{Well, perhaps he did have a few na\"\ ve illusions about
this, but the value of the language does not depend upon them.} he did
regard it as a significant step in the direction of mutual understanding
and respect.  He knew, however, that there would be no chance for
success unless the international language were as easy to learn as
possible.  Therefore, he made that a primary consideration as he worked
out the details of Esperanto. 
 
As anyone knows who has ever studied any second language, one of the
things that makes the task difficult is the profusion of
irregularities and exceptions that complicate languages without
contributing any significant expressive power.  In Esperanto, as far
as possible, these irregularities are eliminated.  All verbs are
regular verbs; all nouns and adjectives are inflected according to
simple exceptionless rules.  Thus, the student has only to learn and
understand a rule once, and it can be used in every case.
 
The word roots are borrowed mostly from Latin, although German,
English, and other languages are also represented.  It may be
complained that this gives Europeans an unfair advantage over Asians,
in learning Esperanto.  To some extent, this is true, but it is a
minor advantage.  The actual learning of word roots is perhaps the
least challenging aspect of any language; it is the grammar which
creates problems.  While some of Esperanto's grammatical structures
may be unfamiliar to, say, Asians, they have the immense advantage of
being quite regular and exceptionless.  As it is, the Japanese and
Chinese are among the world's most enthusiastic Esperantists. 
 
The other great simplifying feature of Esperanto is the system of
affixes, which keeps the basic vocabulary of word roots relatively
small, while allowing a very wide range of expressions.  Second to
Esperanto, the languages that make most extensive use of this sort of
capability are Turkish, Japanese and Zulu.  Such languages are called
``agglutinating'' languages by linguists.
 
It is estimated that one can learn Esperanto in one-fourth to
one-tenth the time it would take to acquire a comparable proficiency
in any national language.  This estimate has been confirmed in
educational experiments.  In this respect, at least, Esperanto must be
regarded as a success.  Many linguists are skeptical that an
``artificial'' language (Esperantists prefer the adjective
``planned'') could ever actually work as an international medium of
communication.  They argue that the pragmatics of language---the
actual range of uses of language---is too culture-dependent.  While
this is a good point, they overlook the ability of people to improvise
linguistic pragmatics, to make language work.  Zamenhof did not try to
(and could not have succeeded if he had tried) anticipate every
possible contingency.  What he did succeed in doing was to create a
functioning but adaptable kernel of a language, which has since grown
and fitted itself to the needs of its speech community. Esperanto
works. Each year there are international conferences, attended by
individuals from dozens of countries; these people use Esperanto
successfully. There are homes where children have been raised speaking
Esperanto as their first language (this happens when Esperantists
marry who have no common language but Esperanto). There are thousands
of books and hundreds of periodicals published in it. With an
estimated million or so Esperanto speakers in the world, the
contention that Esperanto ``cannot work'' is simply misinformation. In
fact, the Esperanto movement itself has become a culture, with its own
practices, norms, and \ae sthetics.

The last point is of particular interest.  From the very beginning,
Esperantists have seen the language as something more than a simple
communication device.  This ``something more'' is sometimes referred to
as the {\bf interna ideo} (internal idea) of Esperanto.  This internal
idea is perhaps the legacy of Zamenhof's intense idealism and optimism
concerning mankind's potential to do good.  Many have scoffed at this
side of Esperanto, but it seems fair to say that it has had a great deal
to do with the survival of the language into its second century. 
Esperantists tend to be {\em passionate} about their language.

As a result, creative people have used Esperanto as a vehicle for
literary expression.  Important works from many national literatures
have been painstakingly translated into Esperanto, and original works of
poetry and fiction have been written in the language.  These literary
forces have considerably enriched the vocabulary and expressive power of
Esperanto, and they have had much to do with the emergence of the \ae
sthetic values mentioned above.
 
\section{The Alphabet (and pronunciation)} To make the orthography
as simple as possible, Esperanto adheres rather closely to the ``one
letter = one sound'' principle.  The vowels {\sl a}, {\sl e}, {\sl i},
{\sl o\/} and {\sl u\/} have the
fairly standard European monophthongal pronunciations, as in the
English words: father, bet, machine, glory, and boot.  The only tricky
thing about the vowels, for English speakers, is to avoid ``glides''.
For example, consider the `e' sound in ``steak''.  Notice how the
tongue moves toward the roof of the mouth to ``complete'' the vowel,
in effect adding a `y' sound to it.  That's a glide, and the Esperanto
`e' should not have it.  Similarly, English speakers tend to
``complete'' the `o' vowel sound by pursing the lips a bit,
effectively adding a `w' sound to it.  In Esperanto, keep the vowel
``pure.''  Another bad habit (from the standpoint of Esperanto) that
English speakers have is to the tendency to ``swallow'' unstressed
vowels, giving them the indistinct sound designated in many
dictionaries by the ``schwa'' symbol.  This is a bad habit because
unstressed vowels may carry important grammatical information in
Esperanto.  Some teachers suggest that their American students try to
fake an Italian or Spanish or slavic accent while learning to speak
Esperanto.  Any one of these accents is likely to be closer to the
``preferred'' Esperanto pronunciation than is a standard American
accent.  So, you might try this.
 
The letters {\sl q}, {\sl w}, {\sl x}, and {\sl y}
are not used in Esperanto.  Most of the
consonants have pronunciations which English-speakers would find
familiar.  The only noteworthy items are:
 
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\sl g}]  always hard, as in ``gift''
\item[{\sl c}]  always pronounced as the English combination `ts'
\item[{\sl j}]  always sounds like the English consonant `y'
\item[{\sl s}]  always an unvoiced sibilant, as in ``Sisyphus''
\item[{\sl r}]  trilled, as in Spanish
\end{itemize}
 
Esperanto uses diacritical marks to form several additional consonants.
 
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\sl \^{c}\/}]    like `ch' in ``church''
\item[{\sl \^{g}\/}]    like `g' in ``germane''
\item[{\sl \^{s}\/}]    like `sh' in ``ship''
\item[{\sl \^{\j}\/}]   like the `s' in ``pleasure''
\item[{\sl \^{h}\/}]   (rare) a guttural `kh' sound, as in the Scottish ``loch''
\item[{\sl \u{u}\/}]   sounds like {\sl w\/}; usually used with
{\sl a}, as in {\bf na\u{u}} (nine), 
which is pronounced just like the English ``now.''  It also appears in
conjunction with the letter {\sl e}, as in {\bf E\u{u}ropo}.  In this case, it
is pronounced rather like the vowels {\sl e\/} and {\sl u\/} spoken rapidly,
collapsed into a single syllable.
\end{itemize}
 
Stress is always on the penultimate syllable, even when we English-
speakers would tend to put it elsewhere.  {\bf filozofio} = {\em [fee loh
zoh FEE oh].}  The rule for identifying what counts as a syllable is
simply: one vowel = one syllable.  Remember that {\sl \u{u}\/} is a
consonant, not a syllable.
 
There are a few words with double vowels, such as {\bf opinii} (to be of 
the opinion) and {\bf scii} (to know, in the propositional sense).  Use a 
glottal stop to separate the vowels, thus retaining the one-syllable-per-
vowel regularity.  {\bf scii} is particularly tricky for English-speakers,
because of the consonant combination at the beginning of the word.
 
\section{Nouns}
\begin{quote}\bf
\begin{tabular}{lll}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\sl Subject}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\sl Direct Object}\\[12pt]
        \sl  Singular        & -o                        & -on\\
         \sl Plural          & -oj                       & -ojn
\end{tabular}
\end{quote}
 
These are the endings, and there are no exceptions.  The definite
article is always {\bf la}, and there is no indefinite article.  Thanks
to these inflections, word order is fairly flexible.  Thus, {\bf  La birdo
kaptas la insekton}, (the bird catches the insect) could as well be
written {\bf La insekton kaptas la birdo}.
 
There are two other uses for the accusative.  One is to indicate
direction.  To distinguish {\bf Mi mar\^{s}is en la \^{c}ambro} (I walked in
the room) from {\bf Mi mar\^{s}is en la \^{c}ambron} (I walked
{\em into} the room), the accusative is used in the latter case. The
other use of the accusative is to omit vague or obvious prepositions.  This
will be considered in more detail in the next section.
 
\section{Prepositions}
 
In Esperanto, prepositions ``govern'' the nominative.  This is
the grammarian's way of saying that a noun that follows a
preposition should not have the characteristic {\bf -n} ending of 
the accusative case.
 
It may appear that the ``accusative of direction'', introduced in 
the last section, is an exception to the rule that prepositions
govern the nominative.  In fact, it is not a true exception. 
Consider again the sentence ``I walked into the room.''  In the
English, you can see right away that the word ``into'' is
actually {\em two} prepositions, put together.  In fact, "to-in"
might be more logical.  Using Esperanto, you {\em could} say {\bf 
Mi mar\^{s}is {\em al en} la \^{c}ambro}, but it is almost never
done this way.  Instead, the accusative is used to {\em replace}
the preposition {\bf al}, which is obvious from context.  So you
see that the so-called ``accusative of direction'' is really just 
a particular case of using the accusative to replace a
preposition:  {\bf Mi mar\^{s}is en la \^{c}ambron.}  Analogous
cases arise where we might in English use ``onto'' or ``under''
(Interesting that English doesn't have a preposition
``underto'').
 
Often, prepositions are used as ``filler'' words without any
special meaning, or where the meaning can be gotten from context.
For example, when we say ``I'll come on Monday,'' the ``on''
doesn't really mean anything. Esperanto has two solutions to this
problem. First, there is the ``all-purpose'' preposition, {\bf
je}. So, the above sentence might be rendered, {\bf Mi venos je
lundo}. The other solution is to forget the preposition and use
the accusative: {\bf Mi venos lundon}. This is very handy in
cases where you are not certain which preposition is appropriate
(and those are generally the cases where the preposition doesn't
say much of anything anyway). In any case, the accusative can
always be used to omit a preposition. 
 
To say ``we are discussing the weather,'' you would say either {\bf Ni
diskutas pri la vetero}, ({\bf pri} = about) or simply {\bf Ni diskutas la
veteron}.  To say ``I will wait for you,'' you could say either {\bf Mi
atendos al vi}, or {\bf Mi atendos vin}.  The only time when you must use
a preposition is to disambiguate a direct object from an indirect
object.  Thus, to say ``I gave the fruit to her,'' you would say {\bf Mi
donis la frukton al \^{s}i}.
 
\section{Adjectives}
\begin{quote}\bf
\begin{tabular}{lll}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\sl Subject}
&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\sl Direct Object}\\[12pt]
\sl          Singular  &       -a          &               -an\\
   \sl       Plural   &        -aj         &               -ajn
\end{tabular}
\end{quote}
 
Adjectives are inflected to ``agree'' with the nouns modified,
according to this simple pattern. Although this aspect of
Esperanto is often criticized as archaic, it does help to keep
sentences unambiguous, and makes word order flexible. It's worth
mentioning that a planned {\em second\/} language might have more
need for redundant structures than a first language, since it has
to function over wide native linguistic gaps.  In English, we
usually put adjectives before the relevant noun; in French, they
usually come after it.  French adjectives often agree with the
nouns, in gender and number, but this agreement is not always
audible in speech (although it is generally reflected in
writing). In German, the adjective agrees with the noun if it
comes before it, but not if it comes after.
 
The Esperanto system of agreement is very simple, and it
minimizes ambiguity.  It is also clearly audible.
 
For comparison of adjectives (or adverbs), Esperanto uses {\bf
pli} and {\bf plej}, for ``more'' and ``most''.  {\bf Malpli} is
``less''; the {\bf mal} prefix is considered later.
 
\section{Adverbs} There are two kinds of adverbs in Esperanto: basic
and derived.  Basic adverbs have no special ending, but simply carry
adverbial meaning.  Examples include {\bf nun} (now), {\bf tuj}
(immediately) {\bf hodia\u{u}} (today), and {\bf ankora\u{u}} (still,
yet).  Derived adverbs are formed from other words (usually, but not
necessarily, adjectives) by means of the ending {\bf -e}.  Thus, {\bf
rapida} = ``fast'', but {\bf rapide} = ``swiftly'', and so on.
Incidentally, Esperanto makes extensive use of adverbs. For example,
where we would say ``On the other hand'', Esperantists say {\bf
aliflanke} (literally, ``other side-ly'').  To say ``We are speaking
English'', you might say {\bf Ni parolas la anglan lingvon}, but it is
simpler to say {\bf Ni angle parolas}. To say, ``I work on Mondays,''
you could say {\bf Mi laboras je lundoj}, but it is simpler to say
{\bf Mi lunde laboras}. Generally, the adverb precedes the verb, but
this is not a rigid rule. One more example: For ``I saw them on
television,'' a characteristic Esperanto expression would be {\bf Mi
televide vidis ilin}. 
 
\section{Verbs} Verbs are mercifully easy.  The infinitive ending
is {\bf -i}.  Thus, {\bf esti} is ``to be'' and {\bf man\^{g}i} is ``to eat'';
{\bf havi} is ``to have''; {\bf koni} is ``to know'' (by acquaintance).
 
 
     The simple tense endings are:
\begin{quote}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
 
\bf -as   &  (present)\\
   \bf                                -is  &   (past)\\
      \bf                             -os  &   (future)\\
         \bf                          -us  &  (conditional/subjunctive)\\
            \bf                       -u   &  (imperative)
\end{tabular}
\end{quote}
 
 
The pronouns are {\bf mi}, {\bf vi}, {\bf li}, {\bf \^{s}i},
{\bf \^{g}i}, {\bf ni}, {\bf ili} (I, you, he, she,
it, we, they, respectively).  When used as direct objects, just add
{\bf -n}, as you would to any other noun.  There is also the pronoun
{\bf si}
which is used only in the third person, to refer to the grammatical
subject of the sentence or clause, in place of {\bf li} to avoid ambiguity.
Consider the English sentence, ``John loves his brother and his
children.''  It is not clear who the referent of ``his'' is supposed
to be.  If John's own children are meant, the Esperanto sentence would
be, {\bf Johano amas sian fraton kaj siajn infanojn}.  If it is his
brother's children whom he loves, it would be, {\bf Johano amas sian fraton
kaj liajn infanojn}.  Note that the pronouns are used as adjectives by
using the regular adjective endings.  ``My book'' is {\bf mia libro}, and so
forth.  Remember that {\bf si} can only refer to the grammatical subject of
the sentence or clause, and only in the third person.
 
Thus, {\bf Mi skribas} is ``I write'' (or I am writing); {\bf Vi
kuris}
is ``you
ran''; {\bf Li rimarkos} is ``he will notice''; {\bf \^{S}i
mar\^{s}as}
is ``she
is walking''; {\bf \^{G}i ne estas bona} is ``it is not good''; 
{\bf Oni zorgas}
is ``one cares''; {\bf Ni lernis} is ``we learned''; {\bf Ili
laboros} is ``they
will work''; {\bf \^{S}i trompas sin} (note the pronouns) is ``she is
tricking herself.''
 
The conditional tense is used in a fairly standard way.  {\bf Se li
scius tion, li ne venus}, means ``If he knew that, he would not
come.''  As in English, it is often used as a polite, less insistent
substitute for certain verbs.  {\bf Mi volas} is ``I want'', but {\bf
Mi volus} is ``I would like.''  {\bf Vi devas} is ``You must'', but
{\bf Vi devus} is ``You should.''
 
Incidentally, verbs such as {\bf voli} (to wish to), {\bf devi} (to be
obligated to) and {\bf povi} (to be able) are used as auxiliaries with
infinitives.  {\bf Mi volus trinki tiun bieron}, means ``I would like
to drink that beer.''  {\bf Vi devas foriri} means ``You must leave.''
 
The {\bf -u} ending is for the imperative.  It is also used in the first and
third person, for ``indirect'' commands, such as {\bf Ni iru}! (let's go!)
Roughly, the -{\bf u} ending would be glossed in English as ``Let it be
that \ldots'', and it carries a sense of urgency.  Thus, the English
sentence ``I insist that he attend the conference,'' would be {\bf Mi
insistas, ke li \^{c}eestu la konferencon}. ({\bf \^{c}eesti} is a compound
word that literally means ``to be at'').
 
For impersonal verbs, such as ``it is raining'', omit the pronoun.
Just use {\bf pluvas}.  To say ``it is warm'', you would say {\bf Estas varme}.
The warmness is expressed as an adverb, because there is no
grammatical subject for an adjective to be linked to.  If you wanted
to say ``the weather is warm'', on the other hand, you would say {\bf La
vetero estas varma}.  Use the pronoun {\bf \^{g}i} only to refer to a
specific entity.
 
Compound tenses are available, with {\bf esti} as the auxiliary verb.  
There are six participle endings: three active and three passive.
\begin{quote}\bf
\begin{tabular}{lll}
&\sl
                    Active     &\sl           Passive\\[12pt]
\sl          Present &   -anta  &               -ata\\
\sl          Past     &  -inta   &              -ita\\
\sl          Future    & -onta    &             -ota
\end{tabular}
 
\end{quote}
 
 
\begin{figure*}\small\centering
\begin{tabular}{lr}
\bf Mi estas skribinta libron.  &I have written a book.\\
\bf La libro estas skribita per mi.  &The book is written by me.\\
\bf \^{G}i estas konstruata.  &It is being built.\\
\bf \^{G}i estas movanta figuro.  &It is a moving image.\\
\bf Mi estis forironta.  &I was about to leave.\\
\bf La insekto estis man\^{g}ota.  &The insect was about to be eaten.\\
\bf \^{S}i estis parolinta.  &She had spoken.
\end{tabular}
\caption{Examples of participle use}
\label{PARTICIPLES}
\end{figure*}
 
Figure~\ref{PARTICIPLES} on page~\pageref{PARTICIPLES}
 shows some examples of participle use
These participles are used in a variety of ways.  As a noun, for
example, {\bf parolanto} means ``speaker'', or ``one who speaks.''  And, like
any other adjective, the participles can serve as adverbs.  Thus,
{\bf mar\^{s}ante, mi falis}. (Walking, I fell.)
 
The future participles {\bf -onta} and {\bf -ota}, which English does not have,
mean ``about to commence''.  Thus, {\bf la venonta jaro} means ``the coming
year''. {\bf  la skribota letero} means ``the about-to-be-written letter''.
 
For most uses, Esperantists favor the simple past tense, unless
the compound tense is necessary to indicate unambiguously the
completed status of an action. So where we might say in English
``I have eaten,'' in Esperanto it would probably just be {\bf Mi
man\^{g}is}. If it were not obvious from context that the action
is completed, the simplest way to indicate would be to use {\bf
Mi jam man\^{g}is} ({\bf jam} = already), but you {\em could} use 
{\bf Mi estas man\^{g}inta.}
 
One other point of simplicity in Esperanto is the occasional elision
of the verb ``to be.''  To say ``you are correct'' in Esperanto, it is
perfectly good usage to say {\bf Vi estas prava}, but many Esperantists
prefer to drop the copula and use the adjective as a verb: {\bf Vi
pravas}.  It is a matter of style and simplicity.
 
\section{Questions} Simple yes-or-no questions are formed by
putting {\bf \^{c}u} at the beginning of the declarative sentence.  Word
order is otherwise unchanged.  {\bf \^{C}u vi parolas esperanton?} is
``Do you speak Esperanto?''  The word {\bf \^{c}u} also means
``whether''.
 
For other kinds of questions, there is a system of ``correlatives'', 
which is very easy to learn.  There are five prefixes and nine suffixes, 
arranged in a very simple logical way.  This is a fine example of 
Esperanto's efficiency, since these types of expressions, in national 
languages, are often quite irregular and confusing.
 
The prefixes:
 
{\bf ki-} (what); {\bf ti-} (that); {\bf i-} (some indefinite); {\bf
\^{c}i-} (every, all); {\bf neni-} (no, not one).
 
The suffixes:
 
{\bf -o} (thing); {\bf -u} (particular individual); {\bf -a} (sort
of); {\bf -e} (place); {\bf -om} (amount); {\bf -el} (manner); {\bf
-am} (time); {\bf -al} (reason); {\bf -es} (possessor).
 
I realize that this looks perfectly obscure.  When I give some 
examples, I think it will begin to be obvious.
 
\begin{quote}\small\centering
\begin{tabular}{lp{1.6in}}
\bf kiam&  what + time = when\\
\bf kie &what + place = where\\
\bf kial& what + reason = why\\
\bf kiel& what + manner = how\\
\bf kiom&what + amount = how much\\
\bf kiu & what + individual = who, or which\\
\bf kia &what + sort of = what kind of\\
\bf kio &what + thing = what thing\\
\bf kies& what + possessor = whose
\end{tabular}
\end{quote}
 
 
I won't go through all 45 possibilities, but I'll list a few of the more 
common correlatives.
 
\begin{quote}\small\centering
\begin{tabular}{lp{1.6in}}
\bf tia &  that + sort of = that sort of\\
\bf neniam &   no + time = never\\
\bf \^{c}io &  every + thing = everything\\
\bf ies &  some + possessor = somebody's\\
\bf neniom &  no + amount = none\\
\bf iu &   some + individual = someone, or some indefinite individual\\
\bf \^{c}iu &   every + individual = every [whatever] (\^{c}iuj = everybody)\\
\bf tial &   that + reason = for that reason, thus\\
\bf \^{c}iam &   every + time = always
\end{tabular}
\end{quote}
 
\begin{figure*}\small\centering
\begin{tabular}{lr}
\bf Kion vi volas?  tion.  & What do you want?  That.\\
\bf Kiun vi \^{s}atas? Tiun.  & Which one do you like?  That one.\\
\bf Kiaj hundoj estas?  & What kind of dogs are they?\\
\bf Kial vi ridis?  & Why did you laugh?\\
\bf Iu parolas.  & Somebody is speaking.\\
\bf Mi konas \^{c}iujn.  & I know everybody.\\
\bf Vi scias nenion.  & You know nothing.\\
\bf Mi ne estas tia virino.  & I am not that kind of woman.\\
\bf Kiu estas tiu viro?  & Who is that man?\\
\bf Kian libron li legis?  & What kind of book did he read?\\
\bf Kiom da tempo vi havas?  & How much time do you have?\\
\bf Kie estas la alta arbo?  & Where is the tall tree?
\end{tabular}
\caption{Correlative Examples}
\label{CORREL}
\end{figure*}
 
To make things even clearer, Figure~\ref{CORREL} on
page~\pageref{CORREL} gives some full sentence examples.  Note that
the {\bf -o} words may take the {\bf -n} ending as direct objects, but
they never take the {\bf -j} plural ending.  The {\bf -u} and {\bf -a}
words, on the other hand, may take the {\bf -j}, {\bf -n}, or {\bf
-jn} endings.  The word {\bf da} means ``of'', in the sense of measure
of some specified thing.  It is not used in {\bf Kiom mi
\^{s}uldas?} (How much do I owe?), where what is owed is not specified.
Finally, don't forget that ``Where are you going'' implies motion toward
a destination, so the accusative is appropriate (even though the
English ``whither'' is archaic): {\bf Kien vi iris?  Tien.}
 
One relatively idiomatic use of these words is {\bf Mi ne estas tiel ri\^{c}a kiel 
vi}, means ``I am not as rich as you.''  In fact, {\bf kiel} is used for ``like'' or 
``as''; {\bf tiom}\dots{\bf kiom} means ``as much...as''.
 
\section{Prefixes and Suffixes} Esperanto has an extensive system
of prefixes and suffixes.  These allow the formation of a large number
of words from a relatively small stock of roots.  They are very
extensively used.
 
The prefixes:
 
\begin{description}
\itemsep=0pt\parsep=2pt plus 1pt minus 1pt
\item[{\bf bo- }]    related by marriage; {\bf bopatro} = father-in-law
\item[{\bf  dis- }]   separation, dispersal; {\bf dissendi} = to broadcast
\item[{\bf  ek- }]    sudden or momentary; {\bf paroli} = to 
     speak; {\bf ekparoli} = to blurt
\item[{\bf eks- }]   former, like ``ex'' in english
\item[{\bf fi- }]    shameful, immoral; {\bf fiviro} = scoundrel
\item[{\bf ge- }]    both sexes together; {\bf gesinjoroj} = ladies 
    and gentlemen
\item[{\bf mal- }]   opposite; {\bf malbona} = bad; {\bf malrapide} = slowly
\item[{\bf mis- }]   incorrect; {\bf miskompreni} = to misunderstand
\item[{\bf pra- }]   of great antiquity; {\bf pratempo} = the ancient past;
\item[{\bf re- }]    repeated, again; {\bf reveni} = to return; 
    {\bf resendi} = to send back
\end{description}
The suffixes:
\begin{description}
\itemsep=0pt\parsep=2pt plus 1pt minus 1pt
\item[{\bf  -a\^{c}- }]   disparagement, inferior quality; {\bf skriba\^{c}i} = to scribble
\item[{\bf  -ad- }]   prolonged or continued; {\bf uzado} = usage; {\bf kuradi} = to keep running
\item[{\bf  -a\^{j}- }]   substance; {\bf man\^{g}a\^{\j}o} = food; 
{\bf porka\^{\j}o} = pork
\item[{\bf  -an- }]   member; {\bf Kristano} = Christian; {\bf Filadelfiano} = Philadelphian
\item[{\bf  -ar- }]   collection, set; {\bf homaro} = mankind; fi\^{s}aro{\bf } = school of fish
\item[{\bf  -ebl- }]  possibility; {\bf videbla} = visible; {\bf kredebla} = believable
\item[{\bf  -ec- }]   abstract quality, ``ness''; {\bf amikeco} =
friendship; 
{\bf boneco} = goodness
\item[{\bf  -eg- }]   great size or degree; {\bf domego} = mansion; {\bf belega} = very beautiful
\item[{\bf  -ej- }]   characteristic place; {\bf lernejo} = school; {\bf hundejo} = kennel
\item[{\bf  -em- }]   propensity, tendency; {\bf parolema} = talkative; {\bf ludema} = playful
\item[{\bf  -end- }]  obligatory; {\bf solvenda problemo} = problem which must be solved
\item[{\bf  -er- }]   single unit; {\bf pluvero} = raindrop
\item[{\bf  -estr- }] leader, manager; {\bf lernestro} = schoolmaster
\item[{\bf  -et- }]   small size or degree; {\bf dometo} = cottage; {\bf beleta} = cute
\item[{\bf  -id- }]   offspring; {\bf katido} = kitten; {\bf hundido} = puppy
\item[{\bf  -ig- }]   cause, bringing about; {\bf klara} = clear; {\bf klarigi} = clarify, explain
\item[{\bf  -i\^{g}- }]   becoming; {\bf blanki\^{g}i} = to become white, to blanche
\item[{\bf  -il- }]   tool, instrument; {\bf komputilo} = computer; {\bf tran\^{c}ilo} = knife
\item[{\bf  -ind- }]  worthy; {\bf memorinda} = memorable; {\bf la\u udinda} = praiseworthy
\item[{\bf  -ing- }]  holder for one object; {\bf kandelingo} = candlestick
\item[{\bf  -in- }]   feminine; {\bf virino} = woman; {\bf filino} = daughter; {\bf knabino} = girl
\item[{\bf  -ism, -ist }] as in English; {\bf dentisto, socialismo, esperantisto}
\item[{\bf  -uj- }]   container; {\bf monujo} = purse; {\bf Anglujo} = England
\item[{\bf  -ul- }]   person with a characteristc quality; {\bf sanktulo} = saint
\item[{\bf  -um- }]   all-purpose suffix; {\bf pleni} = to fill; {\bf plenumi} = to fulfill
\end{description}
 
Some of these are more common than others.  Interestingly, some of
them can be used as words in their own right, and in combinations.
{\bf ilarujo}, for example, is a container for a collection of tools:
a toolbox.  {\bf ani\^{g}i} means ``to become a member'' or ``to
join''.  {\bf eble} means ``perhaps'' or ``maybe''.
 
A few suffixes deserve special comment.  The {\bf -igi} suffix, which
indicates the causing of the condition specified in the root.  It can
be used with an adjective root, as in the {\bf klara---klarigi} example,
or with an intransitive verb root.  {\bf stari}, for example, means to
stand.  {\bf starigi}, then, means ``to set up'', or more simply ``to
establish.''  {\bf lernigi} is to teach someone.  All {\bf -igi} verbs are
transitive.
 
The {\bf i\^{g}i} suffix, indicating becoming, has just the opposite
effect.  It turns transitive verbs into intransitive ones.  {\bf
naski} is ``to give birth, to bear'', so {\bf naski\^{g}i} is ``to be
born.''  This suffix is often used instead of a compound tense
involving an auxiliary verb and a passive participle.  For example, to
say ``The letter was written yesterday,'' you could say {\bf
Hiera\u{u}, la letero estis skribita}, but you might just as well say
{\bf Hiera\u{u}, la letero skribi\^{g}is}.  It seems that many
Esperantists prefer this for passive voice constructions.  Naturally,
all {\bf -i\^{g}i-} verbs are intransitive.
 
These remarks about {\bf -ig-} and {\bf -i\^{g}} are especially
important because in Esperanto every verb is definitely
transitive or definitely intransitive.  This is not the same as
English, where we have ``semi-transitive'' verbs.  Consider the
English verb ``drown''.  It can mean (intransitively) something
that happens to someone, or (transitively) something that someone 
does to another. In Esperanto, the verb {\bf droni} has only the
intransitive meaning. If you want to talk about drowning somebody
or something, you use {\bf dronigi}, which literally means
``cause-to-drown'', a transitive verb. The {\bf -ig-} ending
might also be used with a verb that is already transitive, to
convey yet another sense.  A common example is {\bf havigi} which 
corresponds roughly to the English verb ``get'' (although that
English verb has many other idiomatic uses not covered by {\bf
havigi}.
 
\section{Numbers}
 
\begin{quote}\bf
unu, du, tri, kvar, kvin, ses, sep, ok, na\u{u}, dek\\
dek unu (11), dek du (12)\ldots\\
dudek (20), dudek unu (21)\\
cent (100), cent kvindek ok (158)\\
\ldots \rm and so forth.
\end{quote}
 
To form ordinals, just use the adjectival endings.  {\bf unua} = ``first'',
etc.  To form fractions, use the suffix {\bf -on-}.  Thus ``two thirds'' is
{\bf du trionoj}.
 
\section{Distinctions and Nuances} What follows is an informal
attempt to clarify some of the finer points of Esperanto usage,
especially those which might not be familiar to an English speaker.
Much of this will be familiar to anyone who already knows one or more
foreign languages.
 
{\bf kelkaj}, {\bf iom da}, and {\bf iu} are all translated into
English as ``some.''  But they mean different things.  You would say,
{\bf Mi a\^{c}etis kelkajn se\^{g}ojn}, (I bought some chairs),
where {\bf kelkaj} really means ``a number of'', or ``at least
one'' of some discretely countable objects. {\bf iom da}, on the
other hand, means ``some amount of'' a continuous quantity, such
as coffee, or time. {\bf \^{C}u vi dezirus iom da kafo?} means
``Would you like some coffee?'' Finally, {\bf iu} means ``some
indefinite individual''. It is sometimes translated as ``any''.
{\bf \^{C}u vi vidas iujn bonajn librojn?} means ``Do you see any
good books?'' {\bf Mi vidas iun virinon tie} is ``I see some
woman there.''  Note that {\bf kelka}, in the singular, means the 
same as {\bf iom da}, but for some reason it is much less
frequently used.
 
{\bf pro} and {\bf \^{c}ar} mean ``on account of'' and ``because''.
{\bf \^{c}ar} is followed by a grammatically complete proposition,
whereas {\bf pro} is followed by a noun phrase.  Compare {\bf Mi
foriris \^{c}ar la biero estis varma}, (I left because the beer was
warm) and {\bf Mi foriris pro la varma biero} (I left on account of
the warm beer).
 
{\bf Do} and {\bf tial} are very close in meaning.  {\bf tial} is
perhaps stronger in emphasizing logical consequence.  It means
``therefore'', or ``for that reason.''  {\bf Do} is usually translated
as ``so'' or ``thus'', and it is used casually to connect ideas.  So,
you could say that {\bf do} is used in about the same way as the first
word of this sentence.  The construction {\bf pro tio ke} is sometimes
met.  It rougly means ``on account of the fact that''.
 
{\bf Por} and {\bf por ke}.  {\bf Por} simply means ``for''; {\bf Por
ke} means ``in order that''.  {\bf Por} is followed by the infinitive,
if it is used with a verb phrase, as in {\bf Mi uzas tason por trinki}
(I use a cup for drinking).  On the other hand, {\bf por ke} is
usually followed by the imperative form of the verb, as it expresses a
desired state of affairs.  {\bf Li parolis malrapide, por ke oni
komprenu lin} (He spoke slowly, so that one could understand him).
 
{\bf \^{G}is} means ``until'' when the concept pertains to time.  It
means ``up to'', or ``as far as'' when the concept pertains to space.
The familiar farewell {\bf \^{g}is la revido!} means ``Until seeing
again!''  {\bf Mar\^{s}u \^{g}is la arbo} means ``Walk to the tree.''
 
{\bf Kiom, kiom da} and {\bf kioma}.  {\bf Kiom da} simply means ``how much
of'', but the word {\bf kioma} is used to ask the time.  It literally
means ``what-th'', if there were such a word.  One says {\bf Kioma
horo estas}? for ``What time is it?''  Thus, {\bf kioma} is really
asking for an ordinal, a position in a series.  To say ``It is two
o'clock'', you would say {\bf Estas la dua horo}, or just {\bf La dua}
({\bf estas} and {\bf horo} are understood).  {\bf Kioma} would also
be used to ask, for example, what floor of a building one lives on:
{\bf Sur kioma eta\^{g}o vi lo\^{g}as}?  The {\bf da} in {\bf
kiom da} constructions is not superfluous.  Consider the
sentences {\bf Kiom da kafo vi deziras?} and {\bf Kiom vi deziras 
kafon?}  The first means ``How much coffee do you want?'' while
the second is ``How much do you want coffee?''
 
{\bf Ajn} means, roughly, ``whatever''.  It emphasizes indefiniteness.
{\bf Venu iam ajn} (Come any time at all); {\bf Donu al mi ion ajn}
(Give me anything at all); {\bf nenio ajn} (nothing whatever).
 
{\bf Ju pli \dots\ des pli} is best explained by examples.  {\bf Ju
pli ri\^{c}a, des pli bona} (The richer, the better); {\bf Ju malpli
parolema, la pli bona} (the less talkative, the better).
 
{\bf Pli} and {\bf plu} both mean ``more'', but in different senses.
{\bf Pli} means ``more of'' some quantity or quality.  {\bf La hundo
estas pli granda ol la kato} (The dog is bigger than the cat).  {\bf
Li havas pli da mono} (He has more money).  {\bf Plu} means
``further'', in the sense of duration or continuance.  {\bf Ni plu
kantu} (Let's sing some more).  {\bf Plue} means ``furthermore''.
{\bf Plia} means ``additional''.
 
{\bf Jes} and {\bf ne} are the words for ``yes'' and ``no'',
respectively.  They can be used as verbs as well.  {\bf Jesi} is to
say yes, or to affirm; {\bf Nei} is to deny.
 
{\bf Jen} is an ``ostention'' word, for which there is no exact
English equivalent.  It is something like the French {\em
voil\`{a}}, or in English where we might say ``here is'' or
``there is'' while pointing to or offering something.  {\bf Jen
mia frato} is ``There's my brother''.  {\bf Jen via mantelo} is
``Here's your coat''.
 
{\bf Po} means ``at'', in the sense of ``at the rate of''. 
{\bf Ni kunsidas po unu fojo semajne}, means ``We meet once
per week.''  {\bf Li vendas pomojn po dek cendoj.}  ``He sells
apples for ten cents (apiece).  This word is frequently misused
by speakers of English, who tend to think of it as the English
word ``per'', which it {\em never} translates.
 
{\bf Kun} and {\bf per} are both translated (sometimes) by the
English word ``with''.  But {\bf kun} translates only the
sense of ``with'' that means ``in the company of'' or ``{\em
along} with''.  {\bf Per} translates that sense of ``with''
that means ``by means of''.  {\bf Mi sekvis kun hundo} means
``Along with a dog, I followed.''  But {\bf Mi sekvis per
hundo} means ``I followed, by means of (using) a dog.''  As long
as you remember to translate {\em meanings} and not {\em words},
this should be no problem.
 
{\bf De} is a versatile word.  It means ``of'', in the sense
of possession or part/whole relationships.  Thus, ``Mark's book'' 
(possession) would be {\bf La libro de Marko}, as in many
Romance languages.  There is also {\bf La pinto de la monto},
for ``The peak of the mountain''.  {\bf De} should not be confused
with {\bf da}, even though both are often translated by ``of''.  {\bf 
Da} is reserved for {\em quantity or measure}.  A distinguishing
example is {\bf \^{C}ambro de studantoj} versus {\bf \^{C}ambro da
studantoj}.  The former refers to the students' room, the room
that belongs to them or houses them.  The latter refers to a
quantity or measure of students: a roomful of them.  Note also
that {\bf de} is often used to indicate authorship, as in {\bf
Pentra\^{\j}o de Rembrandt} ({\bf pentra\^{\j}o} = painting). It
may also denote subject-matter, as in {\bf Pentra\^{\j}o de
Napoleon}.  Clearly, there is the possibility of confusion here.  
As a result---and this is a good example of how Esperanto has
{\em evolved} to solve problems---the meaning of authorship is
increasingly expressed by {\bf fare de}, and more than a few
contemporary Esperantists have proposed, and are using, the newly 
coined preposition {\bf far}.  As for the subject-matter use of {\bf
de}, you will occasionally see {\bf pri}, which means ``about'', in 
its place.  This strikes me as perfectly logical, and I think it
should be more widely used than it is.  If we would use it, we
could translate ``Mark's painting of Socrates by Dali'' as {\bf La
pentra\^{\j}o pri Sokrato far Dali de Marko}.  This may be a
mouthful, but it is unambiguous.
 
{\bf El} is also often translated as ``of'', but it mostly
corresponds to ``from''.  It denotes removal, individuation and
composition.  We say in English that something is made {\em of}
wood.  In Esperanto it would be {\bf farita el ligno}.  We say that 
someone ran {\bf from} the room, indicating removal from that
location.  Again, this is translated by {\bf el}.  Finally, we may
want to individuate one individual {\em of} a group, as in ``One
of those students''.  This would be {\bf Unu el tiuj studantoj}.
 
\begin{flushright}
Todd C. Moody\\
26 Roumfort Rd.\\
Philadelphia, PA  19119\\
215-248-0493
\end{flushright}
 
\end{document}

