Log inSign up

La rakonto estas amuza, kaj la infano jam ne timas en la nokto.

La rakonto estas amuza, kaj la infano jam ne timas en la nokto.
The story is fun, and the child is no longer afraid at night.

Breakdown of La rakonto estas amuza, kaj la infano jam ne timas en la nokto.

esti
to be
la
the
en
in
kaj
and
infano
the child
amuza
fun
nokto
the night
ne
not
jam
already
timi
to fear
rakonto
the story
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Esperanto grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Esperanto now

Questions & Answers about La rakonto estas amuza, kaj la infano jam ne timas en la nokto.

Why do we use la in la rakonto and la infano? In English I might say “a story” or “a child.”

La is the definite article, like the in English.

  • la rakonto = the story
  • la infano = the child

In this sentence, we’re talking about a particular story and a particular child that are already known in the context, so Esperanto uses la.

If you wanted to speak about some random, unspecified story or child, you could say:

  • Rakonto estas amuza. – A story is fun. (in general)
  • Infano timas en la nokto. – A child is afraid at night. (not a specific child)

So la is used more like English the, not like English a/an.

Why is it rakonto (with -o) and amuza (with -a)? What would rakonta mean?

In Esperanto, word endings show the part of speech:

  • -o = noun
  • -a = adjective
  • -e = adverb
  • -i = infinitive verb, etc.

So:

  • rakonto = a story (a noun)
  • amuza = funny, amusing (an adjective)

If you said rakonta, that would be an adjective: story-like, narrative, telling (as an adjective). For example:

  • rakonta stilo – a narrative style
  • rakonta voĉo – a storytelling voice

In La rakonto estas amuza, rakonto must be a noun, so it ends in -o. Amuza must be an adjective describing the story, so it ends in -a.

Why is it estas amuza and not estas amuzan? Shouldn’t adjectives have -n too?

Adjectives in Esperanto do take -n, but only when they directly modify a direct object.

  • Mi vidas la amuzan filmon. – I see the funny movie.
    • filmon = direct object (has -n)
    • amuzan agrees with filmon in -n

In La rakonto estas amuza:

  • rakonto is the subject (no -n)
  • estas is a linking verb (“to be”)
  • amuza is a predicative adjective: it describes the subject via estas

Predicative adjectives do not take -n:

  • La knabo estas alta. – The boy is tall.
  • La filmo estas interesa. – The film is interesting.
  • La rakonto estas amuza. – The story is amusing.

So estas amuza (without -n) is correct.

Could I say La rakonto amuzas la infanon instead of La rakonto estas amuza? What’s the difference?

Yes, you can, but the meaning shifts a bit.

  • La rakonto estas amuza.
    Focus: the quality of the story. “The story is amusing / funny.”

  • La rakonto amuzas la infanon.
    Focus: the effect of the story on someone. “The story amuses the child.”

In your original sentence, the first clause just describes the story:

  • La rakonto estas amuza, kaj la infano jam ne timas en la nokto.
    The emphasis is: because the story is pleasant/fun, the child is no longer afraid.

If you said:

  • La rakonto amuzas la infanon, kaj la infano jam ne timas en la nokto.

you’d be stressing that the story actively entertains the child. It still makes sense, but it’s a slightly different nuance.

What exactly does jam ne mean? How is it different from ne jam and from ne plu?

These combinations are important:

  • jam ne = no longer, not anymore
  • ne plu = no longer, not anymore (very similar in meaning)
  • ne jam = not yet (this is rarer; usually people say ankoraŭ ne)

In your sentence:

  • la infano jam ne timas = the child is no longer afraid / is not afraid anymore

Compare:

  • La infano ankoraŭ timas. – The child is still afraid.
  • La infano jam ne timas. – The child is no longer afraid.
  • La infano ankoraŭ ne timas. – The child is not yet afraid (he/she will be later, or we expect it).

Jam ne and ne plu are usually interchangeable:

  • La infano jam ne timas.
  • La infano ne plu timas.

Both = “The child is no longer afraid.”

I learned that timi means “to fear something”. Why is it just timas en la nokto without an object?

Timi can be:

  1. Transitive – to fear something:

    • La infano timas la mallumon. – The child fears the darkness.
    • Mi timas hundojn. – I am afraid of dogs.

  2. Intransitive / general – to be afraid (without saying of what):

    • La infano timas. – The child is afraid.
    • Kiam li estas sola, li timas. – When he is alone, he is afraid.

In la infano jam ne timas en la nokto, timas is used in this general sense:

  • timas = is afraid
  • en la nokto = specifying when/under what circumstances

So it means roughly “the child is no longer afraid at night”, even though the specific object of fear (darkness, monsters, etc.) is not mentioned.

Why is it en la nokto and not en la nokton? When do you add -n after a preposition like en?

Normally, a preposition already shows the grammatical role, so you don’t add -n:

  • en la domo – in the house
  • kun la infano – with the child
  • por la infano – for the child

However, Esperanto allows optional -n after some prepositions (especially en, sur, sub, tra) to show movement / direction instead of location:

  • en la domo – in the house (location)
  • en la domon – into the house (movement to a place)

In your sentence:

  • en la nokto = in/at night (a time setting, “during the night”)
    There is no idea of movement, so en la nokto (without -n) is correct.

You would not say en la nokton here, because we are not “going into” the night; we’re just saying when the child is afraid.

Is en la nokto the same as nokte or dum la nokto? Which should I use?

All three are possible, with small differences in style or nuance:

  • en la nokto – literally “in the night”; very natural for “at night / during the night”
  • dum la nokto – explicitly “during the night”; emphasizes the duration
  • nokte – “at night” as an adverb; a bit more compact and slightly more literary/neutral

All of these are understandable in your context:

  • … jam ne timas en la nokto.
  • … jam ne timas dum la nokto.
  • … jam ne timas nokte.

They all basically mean “is no longer afraid at night.” The original en la nokto is perfectly natural.

Why is there a comma before kaj? Is that normal in Esperanto?

Yes, it’s acceptable in Esperanto to put a comma before kaj when you’re joining two independent clauses, just like in English:

  • La rakonto estas amuza, kaj la infano jam ne timas en la nokto.
    • Clause 1: La rakonto estas amuza.
    • Clause 2: La infano jam ne timas en la nokto.

Both could stand as separate sentences, so a comma before kaj is fine.

If you’re just linking two words or short phrases, you normally don’t use a comma:

  • La rakonto estas amuza kaj interesa. – The story is funny and interesting.

So: comma before kaj is optional but common when joining full clauses; not used when joining simple words in a list.

Could I replace the second la infano with li or ĝi? Do I have to repeat the noun?

You don’t have to repeat the noun; a pronoun is possible, depending on the gender/word you chose before.

If earlier context already made it clear that the child is, for example, a boy (knabo) or a girl (knabino), you could say:

  • La rakonto estas amuza, kaj li jam ne timas en la nokto. – and he is no longer afraid…
  • …, kaj ŝi jam ne timas en la nokto. – and she is no longer afraid…

If you had previously referred to la infano and wanted a neutral pronoun:

  • …, kaj ĝi jam ne timas en la nokto.

However, ĝi can sound a bit impersonal for a human, depending on the context; many speakers prefer li or ŝi once the gender is known.

Repeating la infano is stylistically fine and completely clear, especially in learner-oriented examples:

  • La rakonto estas amuza, kaj la infano jam ne timas en la nokto.

So: pronoun use is allowed, but repeating the noun is also correct and often clearer for beginners.