Noun ellipsis omits an O-word that the listener can recover: Mi elektis la ruĝan [ĉemizon] “I chose the red one.” The noun disappears, but its grammatical features do not. The remaining adjective takes the number and case that the full noun phrase would require: la ruĝa, la ruĝaj, la ruĝan, la ruĝajn.
This is not automatic conversion of an adjective into a noun. Ruĝa still has the A-ending and means “red”; the context supplies an omitted O-word. Changing it to ruĝo creates the independent noun “redness/the color red,” which is usually a different meaning.
Agreement survives omission
| Full phrase | Elliptical phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| la blua taso | la blua | the blue one |
| la bluaj tasoj | la bluaj | the blue ones |
| la bluan tason | la bluan | the blue one as object |
| la bluajn tasojn | la bluajn | the blue ones as object |
The omitted citation form would end in -o, but the surviving A-word does not acquire that ending. It carries its own sequence -a-j-n when plural and accusative.
La blanka ĉemizo estas tro granda; mi provos la bluan.
The white shirt is too large; I will try the blue one.
La bluan means la bluan ĉemizon. Singular object -n remains on the adjective.
La bluaj ŝuoj estas komfortaj, sed mi aĉetos la nigrajn.
The blue shoes are comfortable, but I will buy the black ones.
The omitted noun is plural ŝuoj, so nigra-j-n marks both number and object case.
The noun must be recoverable
Ellipsis works when context makes the missing category clear. In a shop full of cups, Mi volas la grandan is clear. Without that shared context, the same phrase could mean a large cup, bag, room, or anything else.
El tiuj tri apartamentoj, la plej hela havas balkonon.
Of those three apartments, the brightest one has a balcony.
The prepositional phrase identifies the comparison set, so la plej hela clearly means la plej hela apartamento.
Ĉu vi volas la grandan aŭ la malgrandan?
Do you want the large one or the small one?
This natural question is safe only when both speakers know what objects are being compared. If not, repeat the head noun.
Mi ne mendis la dolĉan; mi mendis la sensukeran trinkaĵon.
I did not order the sweet one; I ordered the sugar-free drink.
La dolĉan recovers trinkaĵon from the situation and contrast. The negative context shows that ellipsis can carry focus without changing the basic agreement rules.
Possessives without the noun
Possessive A-words can stand with an omitted noun. La mia explicitly means “mine/the one belonging to me,” while bare mia is also possible when comparison makes the noun obvious. The explicit article is often clearer.
Via telefono estas pli nova ol la mia.
Your phone is newer than mine.
La mia means la mia telefono. It is singular and nominative because it is the second term of the comparison, not a direct object.
Mi ne trovas mian ŝlosilon; ĉu mi povas uzi la vian?
I cannot find my key; may I use yours?
La vian recovers ŝlosilon and receives object -n from uzi. For the wider pattern, see Possessives without a Noun.
Numerals can remain alone
A cardinal numeral may stand for an omitted count noun: Mi bezonas tri [biletojn]. The numeral itself does not take -j or -n; the meaning comes from the recoverable noun and clause.
Mi aĉetis kvin pomojn, sed la infanoj jam manĝis du.
I bought five apples, but the children have already eaten two.
Du means du pomojn. It stays unchanged even though the omitted phrase is plural and accusative.
Kiun el la tri proponoj vi preferas? — La duan.
Which of the three proposals do you prefer? — The second one.
The ordinal is an A-word. La duan receives singular object -n, while the cardinal tri stays invariable before the expressed plural noun proponoj.
Ellipsis versus a derived O-word
Esperanto can create independent nouns from a stable root, but that is not the same operation. La juna means “the young one” with some contextually supplied noun. Junulo is a lexical person noun, “a young person.” La utila can mean “the useful thing/aspect”; utilo means utility or benefit.
El la du kandidatoj, la pli juna atendis ekstere; dume junulo parolis kun la direktoro.
Of the two candidates, the younger one waited outside; meanwhile, a young person spoke with the director.
La pli juna depends on the omitted noun kandidato, supplied by the opening comparison set. Junulo is an independent O-word. If context does not supply what an A-word such as la juna means, la juna persono or la junulo is clearer.
Common Mistakes
1. Replacing the omitted noun with -o on the adjective root
❌ Mi elektis la ruĝon, ĉar la blua ĉemizo estis tro granda.
Incorrect for ‘the red one’: ruĝon means the color red or redness as an object.
✅ Mi elektis la ruĝan, ĉar la blua ĉemizo estis tro granda.
I chose the red one because the blue shirt was too large.
2. Losing plural agreement
❌ Mi bezonas la du grandan.
Incorrect: two omitted count nouns require plural agreement.
✅ Mi bezonas la du grandajn.
I need the two large ones.
3. Losing accusative marking
❌ Ĉu vi preferas la verdan tason aŭ la blua?
Incorrect: the omitted second object still needs -n.
✅ Ĉu vi preferas la verdan tason aŭ la bluan?
Do you prefer the green cup or the blue one?
4. Omitting a noun with no recoverable antecedent
❌ Mi aĉetis interesan, sed neniu scias, kian aferon mi celas.
Incorrectly unclear: interesan has no recoverable omitted noun.
✅ Mi aĉetis interesan libron pri astronomio.
I bought an interesting book about astronomy.
Key Takeaways
Noun ellipsis leaves a recoverable O-word unspoken while number and case remain visible on surviving A-words. Restore the full phrase mentally, then use -a, -aj, -an, or -ajn. Cardinal numerals remain invariable. Do not substitute -o, because that creates an independent noun with a potentially different meaning.
Related Topics
- Possessives without a NounA2 — Use possessive A-words independently when the omitted noun is recoverable, retaining its number and accusative endings.
- Substantivized AdjectivesA1 — Distinguish adjectives used with an omitted noun from true nouns formed from the same root, and mark number and case correctly in both patterns.
- Object EllipsisB2 — When Esperanto may leave an object unspoken, when a visible substitute still needs accusative marking, and when omission becomes unclear.