Comparison Clauses

A comparison clause supplies a complete situation as the standard against which another situation is measured. Esperanto uses kiel for equality or similarity and ol after markers of difference such as pli, malpli, alia, and malsame. It also uses kvazaŭ for an imagined comparison: something looks or happens “as if” another scene were real.

Many everyday comparisons are shortened: Nora estas pli alta ol mi leaves estas alta understood. This page concentrates on the productive relationship between those compact expressions and finite clauses, because expanding the hidden clause reveals the correct case, tense, mood, and meaning.

Equality with kiel

Comparative kiel works with tiel, same, simile, tia, sama, or another expression of equality. In a full comparison clause, a finite verb states the second situation:

Each kiel clause has its own subject and finite verb. The tense need not match: Leo cooks now, whereas his grandmother cooked in the past.

Tiel is often omitted when the manner comparison remains obvious:

With same, retain kiel: same rapide kiel, not same rapide ol. The underlying logic is equality, even when the two compared actions occur at different times.

Inequality with ol

Ol introduces the second side of a nonequal comparison. It commonly follows pli, malpli, alia, alie, malsama, or malsame:

In these examples the missing quantity or time can be paraphrased with kiom or kiam, but standard Esperanto allows ol itself to introduce the finite clause. The second clause is not a ke-clause: it gives the comparison standard, not the object of cost or end.

English alternates between than, from, and other phrasing. Esperanto keeps the coherent comparison marker ol after alia and related difference words.

Full clauses and shortened comparisons

PMEG treats kiel and ol as clause-introducing words at their base, although they very often precede only one phrase. Recovering the fuller clause shows what the short form means:

Not every short kiel phrase has one uniquely recoverable full clause. Li laboras kiel instruisto usually names his role, not a literal comparison, and belongs with role/function uses. Do not force every occurrence into an artificial expansion. The finite-clause test is a tool for understanding genuine comparisons, not a claim that speakers mentally restore missing words every time.

Some full equality clauses use a more specific KI-word

General comparative kiel is ideal before a short standard: urboj kiel Parizo, same rapide kiel Leo. When an explicit finite clause follows, Esperanto can choose the KI-correlative that states the exact relation:

Kian correlates with tian quality, kiun identifies the same route, and kiom measures the same quantity. These are finite relative clauses, not arbitrary substitutes for every comparative kiel. In particular, do not mechanically change short urboj kiel Parizo to urboj kiaj Parizo; the short general comparison with kiel is the traditional, clear form.

Case reveals the hidden role

In a shortened comparison, the phrase after kiel or ol keeps the case or preposition that it would have in the expanded clause.

Here mi is the subject of understood konas, so it has no -n. Compare:

Now min is the object of understood konas. English conversational than me can hide this distinction, but Esperanto case exposes it. If either short version could be misunderstood, write the full clause:

The same principle applies to prepositions: Mi parolas kun Nora pli ofte ol kun Leo compares two kun relationships, so the preposition appears in the second standard as well.

Comparing quantities and complete situations

When the comparison concerns a quantity, full equality clauses often use kiom, especially with tiom:

With difference, ol can introduce a clause in which an understood kiom supplies the measured amount:

This is a comparison of two quantities: the number who came and the number the room could accommodate. The page on quantity comparison develops tiom … kiom and pli da … ol in detail.

Imagined comparison with kvazaŭ

Kvazaŭ means roughly “in the way it would be if” and introduces a fantasy or appearance rather than an ordinary equal-degree comparison:

The usual pedagogical choice is conditional -us because the comparison is presented as unreal or imagined. Foundational and later usage also attests real-mode forms after kvazaŭ; PMEG explicitly accepts them because kvazaŭ already marks the imaginative comparison. Real mode is especially natural when the clause reproduces someone’s actual viewpoint or thought. This is accepted variation, not a reason to alternate forms randomly.

For active production, use -us for an openly unreal scene and retain a real tense when faithfully reporting a represented thought or when the time relation is important. See manner clauses for how kvazaŭ describes apparent manner.

Tense and mood remain independent

The main and comparison clauses locate their events separately:

Future daŭros and past prognozis are both literal. A past main verb does not trigger English-style backshift in the comparison:

The future remains future within Nora’s report, while timas describes a present fear. Use -us only when the comparison itself is hypothetical.

Questions, negation, and discourse

Negation can target the degree in the main clause without negating the comparison clause. The second example says the actual duration failed to reach the expected duration; it does not say that the speaker had no expectation.

Full wording is useful in a correction or calculation. In routine conversation, ol la malnova would normally be enough.

Punctuation and information packaging

A finite comparison clause is conventionally separated by a comma when there is a natural clause boundary: pli, ol ni atendis. A short phrase normally has no comma: pli alta ol mi. Esperanto comma use reflects phrasing and clarity rather than an absolute English punctuation rule, so long or contrastive comparisons may invite a pause even when partly elliptical.

Comparison clauses normally follow the measured expression. Fronting the comparison is possible for contrast—Kiel faris lia antaŭulo, tiel faris ankaŭ la nova direktoro—but it is marked and more common in (formal) or rhetorical prose. Neutral writing puts the known standard after the item being evaluated.

Common Mistakes

1. Using kiel after a comparative of inequality.

2. Using ol with an equality expression.

3. Copying English conversational object case after than.

4. Adding ke before a comparison clause.

5. Backshifting future to conditional after a past report.

Key Takeaways

• Kiel marks equality or similarity; ol marks greater, smaller, or different comparison.
• A short comparison often represents a fuller clause, and its case reflects its role in that clause.
• Write the full second clause when ellipsis would create ambiguity.
• Kvazaŭ introduces an imagined comparison; -us is the normal recommendation for overt unreality, while real-mode uses are established.
• Tense and mood express genuine time and modality rather than mechanically copying English backshift.