erinja:

orthohawk:

erinja:

orthohawk:
Kiom is "how much" as a question (or relative pronoun) when followed by nothing. Kiom da is typically followed by a noun that you're asking "how much of it".

What Orthohawk says is correct. However, I think you meant "thee is" or "thee's" rather than "you're" in this sentence. I am sure you didn't mean to refer to Kuniklo in the plural.

"you" as in the "general you" not the "'personal' you" The "general you" uses the plural for some reason......at least no one I know who uses plain speech ever uses "thee" for the "general you" meaning.

So in other words, Kuniklo should use "-in-" only in case that Kuniklo is referring to a female doctor, but general Esperantists should do something different?

Unless he has religious reasons for indicating gender on any word referring to a person (thought thee caught me out, didn't thee?).....but even if he did (use -in whenever referring to a female) i'm sure no one would be so judgmental as to immediately assume he was being sexist.......

and by the way, for one who barely knows (by their own admission) anything about Plain Speech to then (attempt to) CORRECT someone who uses it on a daily basis, is rather presumptuous, wouldn't thee agree?

erinja:Family words are gendered. "Patro" only means father, period, and you have to say "patrino" to mean mother. Other than these family words, words like doctor, friend, etc are neutral, though some people treat them as generically male.

"Mi volas pli da pomoj" is perfectly good Esperanto. No need for "multe". Note that -n isn't used after "da" so it is definitely "da pomoj" and never *da pomojn.

"tri de ili" and "tri el ili" aren't interchangeable. I would never say "tri de ili", I can't even quite imagine when I'd say that.

tri el ili is three out of a group (you have five, let's say, and I am asking for three out of five; el here is referring to how many individuals out of a known group)

tri da ili shows quantity. I want a quantity of three (of whatever is "ili")

Ah, I forgot to remove the accusative there. Thanks for correcting me.

I didn't know you could use pli on its own, and I'm not really sure why - it doesn't seem logical to have the word used to mean "more" in the comparative-adjective sense to be the same as the one to indicate "more" of a quantity. I'd seen people write it before but I always assumed it was a carryover from those who spoke English. Do you know why this is, or where something would explain this way of using "pli"?

I'm still learning when to best use "el," "de," and "da," but I think saying that you'd never say "tri de ili" is a bit over the top. True, using "el" is the proper usage when you are referring to three things out of a group of more than three, and "da" for when you want a quanitity of three, which would cover most usages, but could I not use "de" in the sense of "from" with ili? Obviously I'd use "ilia" for the possessive use of "de," but if I wanted to say "I got five dollars from grandma and three from them," wouldn't the correct translation be "Mi ricevis kvin dolarojn de avino kaj tri de ili"? Not exactly the same usage as we were previously discussing, but am I wrong in assuming that would be correct?

sparksbet:I didn't know you could use pli on its own, and I'm not really sure why - it doesn't seem logical to have the word used to mean "more" in the comparative-adjective sense to be the same as the one to indicate "more" of a quantity. I'd seen people write it before but I always assumed it was a carryover from those who spoke English. Do you know why this is, or where something would explain this way of using "pli"?

Maybe you have been too critic about "pli" in Esperanto. It seems to work almost the same way as its counterpart in English, i.e. it is a "quantifier" and can act either modifying an attribute (pli granda) or it can act as quantity by itself (pli da sukero).

sparksbet:I'm still learning when to best use "el," "de," and "da,"

Think of "el" as "taken from a group" (as you have already indicated), of "de" as a possessive, and of "da" as a partitive.

sparksbet:"Mi ricevis kvin dolarojn de avino kaj tri de ili"

This example has nothing to do with a phrase of the form "quantity DE nominal phrase". In your example the "de ili" refers to (is dependant on/of) "ricevis" and is found only by chance behind "tri". Try moving the parts of the sentence around in order to determine which belong to the same phrase: "Mi ricevis kvin dolarojn de mia avino kaj de ili (sc. miaj geonkloj) [mi ricevis] tri [dolarojn]."
There is no relation between "tri" and "de ili".

nornen:

erinja:

orthohawk:
Kiom is "how much" as a question (or relative pronoun) when followed by nothing. Kiom da is typically followed by a noun that you're asking "how much of it".

What Orthohawk says is correct. However, I think you meant "thee is" or "thee's" rather than "you're" in this sentence. I am sure you didn't mean to refer to Kuniklo in the plural.

+1

Well, if you're trying to use the pronouns in the way they were used a few hundred years ago, then it would be "thou art". "thee" corresponds to EO "cin" while "thou" is more like "ci".

Nile:

nornen:

erinja:

orthohawk:
Kiom is "how much" as a question (or relative pronoun) when followed by nothing. Kiom da is typically followed by a noun that you're asking "how much of it".

What Orthohawk says is correct. However, I think you meant "thee is" or "thee's" rather than "you're" in this sentence. I am sure you didn't mean to refer to Kuniklo in the plural.

+1

Well, if you're trying to use the pronouns in the way they were used a few hundred years ago, then it would be "thou art". "thee" corresponds to EO "cin" while "thou" is more like "ci".

I know exactly what corresponds to what. and no, I'm not "trying to use the pronouns in the way they were used a few hundred years ago". I have sent thee a link to a website explaining.

Nile:

nornen:

erinja:

orthohawk:
Kiom is "how much" as a question (or relative pronoun) when followed by nothing. Kiom da is typically followed by a noun that you're asking "how much of it".

What Orthohawk says is correct. However, I think you meant "thee is" or "thee's" rather than "you're" in this sentence. I am sure you didn't mean to refer to Kuniklo in the plural.

+1

Well, if you're trying to use the pronouns in the way they were used a few hundred years ago, then it would be "thou art". "thee" corresponds to EO "cin" while "thou" is more like "ci".

Please don't comment on orthohawk's grammar issues, if you don't want to receive a shitstorm of private messages full of insults (not from me, from him).
It is some religious thing.

Thank you all for answering the questions.

If possible I have two more questions.

What is the proper way to thank someone for object/verb?

Such as thank you for answering the questions.
Dankas respondi la demandojn?

Thank you for the present
Dankon pro la donacon?

When using direction.
Is it a choice of rather to use n or al.(Such as always use one instead of the other)
Such as I went to the store.
Butikon iris mi
al butiko iris mi

Kuniklo_Blua:What is the proper way to thank someone for object/verb?

Such as thank you for answering the questions.
Dankas respondi la demandojn?

Dankon ke vi respondis al la demandoj.
Dankon pro/por la respondo al la demandoj.

Thank you for the present
Dankon pro la donacon?

Dankon pro/por la donaco (without -n)

Is it a choice of rather to use n or al.(Such as always use one instead of the other)
Such as I went to the store.
Butikon iris mi
al butiko iris mi

Yes, you can use one or the other, but never both.

When using direction.
Is it a choice of rather to use n or al.

By far the most common is iri al.

However with adverbs, and occasionally with place names, you will encounter 'n'.

So iri hejmen, iri supren, ktp and infreqently iri Parizon, Bulonjon, ktp.

orthohawk:and by the way, for one who barely knows (by their own admission) anything about Plain Speech to then (attempt to) CORRECT someone who uses it on a daily basis, is rather presumptuous, wouldn't thee agree?

No, I have no clue what you're talking about. Online forums for language advice are usually giving advice both to the asker and to the entire community of readers. I can't fathom why you seem to be suggesting that part of your advice applies only to Kuniklo and part seems to apply to everyone, and how you make this distinction (and how you seem to expect that Kuniklo will look at your grammar and know you are making this distinction).

orthohawk:Unless he has religious reasons for indicating gender on any word referring to a person (thought thee caught me out, didn't thee?).....but even if he did (use -in whenever referring to a female) i'm sure no one would be so judgmental as to immediately assume he was being sexist.......

I have no idea what you mean by this. In the Esperanto world, I've never met anyone who persistently used -in- on words for religious reasons, or for that matter, for reasons of sexism. Sexism has absolutely nothing to do with it. Some people do it because they believe (erroneously, in my opinion) that the language requires it. Some people do it because they speak a language that requires it and they are in the habit of distinguishing, so they continue this in Esperanto. I am not sure why you raise sexism as an issue because being a sexist has nothing to do with using the -in- ending where it isn't strictly necessary.