Every assertion places some responsibility on its speaker. Esperanto lets you say whether a claim is your opinion, another source's report, a conclusion from visible evidence, a probability, or a directly observed fact. Two questions should be kept separate: Where does the information come from? and How certain is the claim? A careful speaker can mark either question or both.
Personal judgment: laŭ mi, miaopinie, mi opinias
Use laŭ mi or miaopinie to frame a proposition as your assessment. Mi opinias, ke... explicitly makes the act of judging the main clause. These forms are semantically close, but their discourse weight differs.
Laŭ mi, la dua propono estas pli realisma.
In my view, the second proposal is more realistic.
Miaopinie, ni devus demandi la uzantojn antaŭ ol ŝanĝi la sistemon.
In my opinion, we should ask the users before changing the system.
Mi opinias, ke la nuna limdato estas nerealisma.
I think that the current deadline is unrealistic.
Mi pensas, ke... is also common and conversationally light (informal/neutral). Mi opinias, ke... more clearly presents an evaluation. These frames can mitigate disagreement by limiting the claim to the speaker's perspective, but they do not make an insult polite. Laŭ mi, vi estas stulta still attacks the person.
Compare a personal judgment with an external attribution:
Laŭ mi, la projekto finiĝos en Junio.
In my view, the project will finish in June.
Laŭ la projektestro, la projekto finiĝos en Junio.
According to the project manager, the project will finish in June.
The sentence after laŭ may be identical, but responsibility for the forecast changes.
Naming the information source
Laŭ + source means “according to” or “on the basis of.” It can name a person, document, measurement, rule, or other basis for the whole statement.
Laŭ la veterprognozo, morgaŭ neĝos en la montoj.
According to the weather forecast, it will snow in the mountains tomorrow.
Laŭ la lasta mezurado, la akvo enhavas malpli da salo ol antaŭ unu jaro.
According to the latest measurement, the water contains less salt than it did a year ago. (academic)
An explicit reporting clause can say more about the source's speech act:
La urbestrino anoncis, ke la ponto remalfermiĝos lunde.
The mayor announced that the bridge will reopen on Monday.
Anoncis, raportis, asertis, klarigis, and konfirmis are not interchangeable. Konfirmis presents information as verified; asertis reports a claim without guaranteeing it. Choosing a verb quietly communicates your stance toward the source.
Unnamed and second-hand sources
Laŭdire means “according to what is said” or “reportedly.” It marks information as second-hand while leaving the source unnamed. Oni diras, ke... likewise invokes circulating talk. Both are useful when the source is genuinely collective or unavailable, but they are weak substitutes for a source you actually know.
La restoracio laŭdire fermiĝos fine de la monato.
The restaurant will reportedly close at the end of the month.
Oni diras, ke la malnova tunelo estas danĝera, sed mi ne trovis oficialan averton.
People say that the old tunnel is dangerous, but I found no official warning.
The second clause explicitly limits endorsement. In journalism and academic prose (formal/academic), naming the report, institution, interviewee, or dataset is normally more responsible than writing only laŭdire. The grammar permits an unnamed source; good evidence practice asks whether anonymity serves a real purpose.
Direct evidence and explicit observation
When your evidence is direct, say what you perceived or checked. Mi vidis, ke..., mi aŭdis, ke..., mi rimarkis, ke..., and mi konstatis, ke... do different work. Aŭdis, ke can mean either hearing the event or hearing a report, so context may need to clarify the source.
Mi vidis, ke la pordo estis malfermita, sed mi ne vidis, kiu eliris.
I saw that the door was open, but I did not see who left.
Mi kontrolis la fakturon kaj konstatis, ke ni pagis dufoje.
I checked the invoice and established that we paid twice.
Mi aŭdis de Lea, ke la kurso estas nuligita.
I heard from Lea that the course has been cancelled.
Adding de Lea disambiguates a reported source. Compare Mi aŭdis la fenestron rompiĝi, where the speaker perceived an event directly.
Confidence: eble, verŝajne, ŝajne, certe
Confidence markers modify the speaker's commitment, not the source itself.
| Marker | Typical interpretation | What it does not claim |
|---|---|---|
| eble | the proposition is possible | that it is probable |
| verŝajne | the proposition is likely | that it is certain |
| ŝajne | appearances support the proposition | that appearance and reality coincide |
| certe | the speaker is confident | that evidence has been named |
| sendube | the speaker presents no serious doubt | that disagreement is impossible |
Eble ŝi ankoraŭ estas en la trajno.
Maybe she is still on the train.
Ŝi verŝajne maltrafis la konekton, ĉar ŝia unua trajno malfruis.
She probably missed the connection because her first train was late.
Ŝi ŝajne ne rekonis min; ŝi preterpasis sen saluti.
Apparently she did not recognize me; she walked past without greeting.
In the last example, behavior supplies an appearance from which the speaker infers a mental state. The reality could be different: perhaps she did recognize the speaker and chose not to greet them.
These markers have flexible placement, but initial position often gives them scope over the whole proposition. Place them near a narrower constituent only when that scope is intended. See clause-modifying adverbs.
Inferential devas
Devas usually expresses necessity or obligation, but context can make the necessity epistemic: the available evidence forces a conclusion.
Ŝia mantelo ne plu estas ĉi tie; ŝi devas jam esti foririnta.
Her coat is no longer here; she must have left already.
La dosiero ne estas ĉi tie. Iu devas esti movinta ĝin.
The file is not here. Someone must have moved it.
This is stronger than verŝajne, but it remains an inference rather than direct knowledge. English uses must in a similar way, so transfer is helpful here. The danger is rhetorical: saying devas esti can make a weak guess sound logically compelled. State the evidence when the conclusion matters.
Combining source and confidence
Source and commitment can appear together because they answer different questions.
Laŭ la teknikistoj, la sistemo verŝajne refunkcios antaŭ tagmezo.
According to the technicians, the system will probably be working again before noon.
The technicians are the source; verŝajne marks the forecast as probable rather than guaranteed. A question can request the listener's stance explicitly:
Ĉu laŭ vi la ŝanĝo vere solvos la problemon?
In your view, will the change really solve the problem?
A responsible negative answer can distinguish lack of evidence from belief in the opposite:
Mi ne povas konfirmi tion. Laŭ la disponeblaj datumoj, ambaŭ klarigoj ankoraŭ eblas.
I cannot confirm that. According to the available data, both explanations are still possible.
Stance in disagreement
Direct assertions are normal in Esperanto, but international conversations bring different expectations about bluntness. Framing an objection around evidence often works better than judging the other person.
Laŭ mi, tiu konkludo ne sekvas el la prezentitaj datumoj. Ĉu vi povus montri la kalkulon?
In my view, that conclusion does not follow from the data presented. Could you show the calculation?
This combination states disagreement clearly, identifies its basis, and opens a path to repair. Adding bonvolu would not fix an accusation; the important mitigation comes from restricting the claim and asking for evidence.
Norm, variation, and evidential responsibility
Esperanto has no obligatory grammatical evidential system: every sentence need not encode how information was acquired. The forms here are standard lexical and syntactic choices. Laŭ mi and miaopinie are accepted variants; laŭdire is established but deliberately source-light. The difference between ŝajne and verŝajne is semantic, though real contexts sometimes support either. The recommendation to name available sources is a discourse and ethical norm, especially in formal writing, not a rule of the Fundamento.
Common Mistakes
Blending two attribution structures
❌ Laŭ la raporto diras, ke la prezo kreskos.
Incorrect blend of ‘according to the report’ and ‘the report says.’
✅ Laŭ la raporto, la prezo kreskos.
According to the report, the price will rise.
Confusing possibility with probability
❌ Eble la trajno malfruas, do ĝi certe alvenos post la oka.
Unsupported jump — a possibility does not justify certainty.
✅ Eble la trajno malfruas; se jes, ĝi alvenos post la oka.
Perhaps the train is delayed; if so, it will arrive after eight.
Using laŭdire when the source is known and relevant
❌ Laŭdire la lernejo fermiĝos, laŭ la retmesaĝo de la direktoro.
Poor attribution — the vague hearsay marker conflicts with the named direct source.
✅ Laŭ retmesaĝo de la direktoro, la lernejo fermiĝos.
According to an email from the principal, the school will close.
Presenting inference as direct observation
❌ Mi vidis, ke ŝi forgesis la kunvenon.
Overclaim — unless forgetting itself was directly established, behavior only supports an inference.
✅ Ŝi ne venis kaj ne respondis; eble ŝi forgesis la kunvenon.
She did not come and did not answer; perhaps she forgot the meeting.
Using an opinion frame as a complete politeness strategy
❌ Laŭ mi, vi evidente ne komprenas ion ajn.
Pragmatically hostile — laŭ mi does not neutralize the personal attack.
✅ Laŭ mi, ni interpretas la demandon malsame. Ĉu ni povas kontroli la difinon?
In my view, we are interpreting the question differently. Can we check the definition?
Key Takeaways
Name perspective with laŭ mi, miaopinie, or mi opinias; name an external source with laŭ X or a precise reporting clause. Use laŭdire only when an unnamed report is truly what you mean. Mark confidence separately with eble, verŝajne, ŝajne, certe, or inferential devas, and avoid claiming stronger evidence than you have.
Related Topics
- Epistemic ModalityB2 — Express certainty, probability, inference, possibility, and impossibility without confusing evidence judgments with obligation or mood.
- Adverbs Modifying Whole ClausesB1 — How sentence adverbs express probability, evaluation, viewpoint, and speaker stance toward an entire proposition.
- LaŭB1 — Use laŭ for following a path, conforming to a rule or model, attributing information, and judging from a stated viewpoint.
- Reported StatementsB1 — Report speech, thought, perception, and written information with finite ke-clauses while preserving the original tense and adjusting viewpoint clearly.
- Corpus Evidence from TekstaroC1 — Use Tekstaro searches to evaluate Esperanto attestation, frequency, period, genre, collocation, and variation without mistaking corpus hits for rules.