Nuboj en la kosmo

Nuboj en la kosmo

Bela kaj bone vortigita blogaĵo pri interesa temo !


Homoj, kiuj regule uzas teleskopon scias ke nenio estas pli ĝena ol nuboj. Malgraŭ tio, multaj el la plej belaj strukturoj en la kosmo estas nubegoj. Ne temas pri nuboj el akvo, kiel tiuj, kiujn oni vidas surtere, sed nuboj el jonoj, gasoj kaj polveroj. Ili troviĝas ekster la sunsistemo, sed ja videblas kiel svagaj makuloj en multaj teleskopoj. Pro tio, ili nomiĝas nebulozoj, laŭ la Latina vorto ”nebula”, kiu signifas nebulo aŭ nubo. Kosma turisto ankoraŭ povus rigardi ĉirkaŭ si tamen. Malgraŭ tio ke nebulozoj estas miloj da fojoj pli densaj ol ”malplenaj” partoj de la universo, ili daŭre estas malpli densaj ol la plej bonaj vakuoj, kiujn inĝenieroj povas krei surtere. Se oni plenigus botelon de 1L en nebulozo, oni tipe kaptus kelkajn milionojn da atomoj. Tio sonas kiel granda kvanto, sed se oni farus la saman sur la surfaco de la Tero, oni fakte kaptus ĉirkaŭ 1022 

View original post 2,108 more words


Apply squirrels where needed – Apliku laŭbezone sciurojn


I recently realised that one of the little enjoyments of my day is when I discover words that demonstrate neat uses of word building. And so this marks the start of a new sub-type of blog post category!

In “productive words”, I’ll introduce a root word which I think has one or more interesting, convenient, or useful constructions that are also found in an Esperanto dictionary (safety reasons). Then, we’ll completely throw caution to the wind and posit some more constructions that aren’t in the dictionary for the sheer heck of it.

Feel free to ask about any words used, or methods of construction; I won’t go into all of them here to start.

Bezoni : To Need

Dictionary examples:

  1. laŭbezone: where needed / as need be / as needed
  2. bezonaĵo: requisite / a thing that is necessary
  3. senbezona: needless

“Laŭ” (“according to” / “following” / “along”) is a frequent culprit for producing interesting constructed words. It works so nicely with so many things. Number 1 is definitely my favourite! So succinct, and avoids those different English variations in favour of a single logical version. But I do also like how simply we get to “requisite” using the “aĵ” suffix!

My thoughts:

  1. Bezonema: needy
  2. Bezonaĉo: base/nasty urge/need also has “necesbezono” as “manko de ĉio, kion postulas la fizika vivo”. What would you say that translates to? Basic needs?

Why not… Combine the power of -ig & -iĝ?!


… It’s sheer madness,  that’s why. But it’s fun, and that’s what we’re here for.

I was trawling through the latest updates to the PMEG (because I know how to party), and found that it’s not entirely unheard of to combine the suffixes -ig & -iĝ in a word. But -ig & -iĝ are sorta like opposites, why don’t they just cancel out?

These suffixes are really useful word-building tools, so if you’re not familiar with how they work, then you can see some examples in my previous post here. Otherwise, here’s quick recap (skip if you’re familiar with -ig & -iĝ):

“g” is pronounced like “g” in “goat”, and “ĝ” is pronounced like “g” in “gem”.

[word]+ig = cause / make happen [word]

For example :

  • “morti” = “to die”
  • “mortigi” = “to kill” (literally: cause to die)

[word]+iĝ = become [word]

For example:

  • “rompi” = “to break (something)”
  • “rompiĝi” = “to become broken”  (In English we tend to just keep using “break”, basically something breaking).

So the reason one might expect the suffixes to cancel out is: you’ve got “rompiĝi” = “to become broken”, so when adding -ig (rompiĝigi) you might expect to have made: “to cause something to become broken” which seems just the same as “rompi” (to break something)!

Note that the “i” ending after the suffixes is what makes the final constructed words into verbs.

An example of both -ig & -iĝ being used in the PMEG is: formoviĝigi

What a beautiful beast of a word, eh? Break it down:

  1. movi: to move (something)
  2. formovi: to move (something) away
  3. formoviĝi: to be moved away / to become moved away
  4. formoviĝigi: to cause to be moved away / to make (something) moved away

There’s a nuanced difference of meaning between your standard formovi and formoviĝigi.

“Formovi” alone implies a direct causation: we actually moved something away. Whereas there’s room for indirect methods in “formoviĝigi”, because we’re just causing something to end up being moved, to become moved. So the addition of “ig” doesn’t quite return us to the original meaning of “formovi”.

In the PMEG’s example, the moving is accomplished through intimidation, not actual physical movement:

  • Rajdmilicanoj formoviĝigis la publikon = Yeomen made the public move away.

Well, we’ve had our fun. But, of course, we must be sensible when talking to new people. It’s usually more clear to just separate off the -ig:

  • Rajdmilicanoj igis la publikon formoviĝi

But where’s the excitement there!? I say just talk more slowly and more loudly 😀 ĥeĥe

Esperantic Quest

“Esperantic”! Such a tasty word. I wish we had something like “Englic” as the adjectival form of English. A missed opportunity.


Long ago, I blitzed through the first version of the Esperanto course on Duolingo, and actually found it very useful for cementing vocabulary in my head in a way that helped my understanding and generation of sentences, right from the basics.

It has come to my attention in recent days that the course seems to have undergone a large update, with plenty new and higher level material! So the time has come to undertake some more Duolingo learning, since my vocabulary sucks compared to my grammar understanding.

Is there anyone who would care join the Esperanta Serĉado? A little competition always makes things more fun. Follow me at !

Vintro Venas…

Frothing at the Mouth


In the past weeks, a number of perfectly pleasant interactions with completely competent individuals out in the world made me feel very… animated, shall we say. And after regaling friends with my tales of these… Interactions… A lovely little Esperanto word formed in my brain:

  • ŝaŭmbuŝa

Besides being gorgeous and bouncy with them lil’ accents and an almost balanced feeling (ŝaŭ … uŝa), it’s just plain fun to say aloud:

  • sh + ow (as in “cow”) + m + BOO + sha
  • showm-BOO-sha

And I think it’s a neat way of expressing the sentiment of this post’s title idiom:

  • ŝaŭmo = froth/foam
  • buŝo = mouth
  • ŝaŭmbuŝo = a frothing/foaming mouth
  • li estis ŝaŭmbuŝa = He was frothing at the mouth (literally: he was froth-mouthed, via the adjectival -a ending)
  • ili trasuferis lian ŝaŭmbuŝan rakonton = They suffered through his frothing-mouthed story.

We could even go full adverb here (with the magic adverb-making -e ending) should we need to describe a verb instead of a noun/pronoun:

  • ŝaŭmbuŝe = froth-mouthedly / with a frothing mouth / while foaming at the mouth / etc.
  • ŝi laŭte kriis ŝaŭmbuŝe = She shouted loudly, foaming at the mouth

This word is an example usage of a word-building formula I discussed on the blog in the distant past, but instead here we’re using an “object root” (ŝaŭmo) as the property “P”. Why not take a trip into my past and see:

Cut the red and blue wires!


Which wires did you cut?

Maybe this would’ve been clearer if I’d chosen one of these for the title:

  1. Tranĉu la ruĝan kaj bluan dratojn!
  2. Tranĉu la ruĝajn kaj bluajn dratojn!

I noticed an interesting post (link) on the forums concerning a similar ambiguity concerning beach flags. So of course I ambled on over to the PMEG (link) for some advice.

I had never thought of using the “a(n)” and “aj(n)” (singular and plural adjective endings) as tools to reduce ambiguity in this way; I thought it was pretty damn cool! In particular, I hadn’t considered using singular adjectives to refer to plural nouns like that.

As I understand it, the singular endings in example 1 imply that we are talking about a blue wire and a red wire. But the plural endings in example 2 imply that we’re probably talking about several red ‘n’ blue wires (because each of the red and blue adjectives apply to all wires)!

Though I do wonder whether 2 could potentially refer to all of them technically…

To Word-thingy


As you know, the PMEG is a pretty awesome resource. And a great model for clear and concise language. Whilst having a read the other day, it used a word that particularly tickled me. Check out this sentence:

  • En la komencaj tempoj la principoj por fari A-vortojn el ne-ecaj radikoj ne estis klare vortumitaj = In the early days [of Esperanto], the principles for making A-words from non-quality roots were not clearly vortumitaj.

Now, I may be reading into this a bit much, but this struck me as a particularly inticing use of the suffix “-um”.

The suffix “-um” has an indefinite meaning. It really has to be used sparingly for when nothing else will do, otherwise we’d be awash with ambiguity. It’s often used on a root when there’s a common thing done with the root, that the normal form of the root does not really cover, but that everyone will guess when you’re talking about it.

I once read someone describe its use on an action root as “to do the X thing” where X is the root. So “brakumi” is “to do the arm thing”, and context or common usage would tell us this is “to hug”. In fact, I think I saw this on the “Amikumu” website, which describes the meaning of “amikumu” as “do the friend thing” (pass time with friends). equates “vortumi” with “vortigi” (to express with words / to phrase). By itself this is quite a neat word. But why might PMEG have chosen “vortumi” instead of “vortigi”?

The PMEG sentence is not trying to say that no one ever tried to talk about the word building principles, but that no one set them out like the PMEG is doing in a more clear, official-like manner for others to follow. So I think “vortumi” is actually quite like the English idiom “to put into words”, which also implies “put into speech or writing”!