Ŝi trinkas varman teon, por ke la gorĝo resaniĝu pli rapide.

She drinks hot tea so that her throat may heal more quickly.

Breakdown of Ŝi trinkas varman teon, por ke la gorĝo resaniĝu pli rapide.

• rapide: quickly
• la: the
• pli: more
• trinki: to drink
• teo: the tea
• varma: hot
• ŝi: she
• gorĝo: the throat
• por ke: so that
• resaniĝi: to heal

Questions & Answers about Ŝi trinkas varman teon, por ke la gorĝo resaniĝu pli rapide.

Why is it varman teon and not varma teo?

Because teon is the direct object of trinkas, it must take the accusative ending -n: teo → teon.

In Esperanto, an adjective agrees with the noun it describes in case and number, so:

• varma teo = hot tea (subject, no -n)
• varman teon = hot tea (direct object, both take -n)

So both varman and teon show the accusative case with -n.

Why does the adjective come before the noun: varman teon? Could I say teon varman?

The normal, most natural order in Esperanto is adjective + noun: varman teon.

However, Esperanto word order is flexible, and teon varman is grammatically possible. It just sounds a bit unusual or marked, sometimes used for stylistic or poetic reasons, or to emphasize the noun first.

For everyday speech and writing, you should prefer varman teon.

Does the ending -n on teon mean “the” or “a/an”? How do I know if it’s definite or indefinite?

The -n ending does not show definiteness; it shows the accusative case (direct object, or some uses of direction).

Definiteness in Esperanto is shown only by the article la:

• (iu) teo = (some) tea, tea in general
• la teo = the tea (a specific tea)
• varman teon = hot tea (as an object; could be “hot tea” or “the hot tea” depending on context)
• la varman teon = the hot tea (definite, object)

So teon alone is just “tea” as a direct object, without specifying “a” or “the”; English forces you to choose, Esperanto doesn’t.

Why is there a comma before por ke? Is it required?

In Esperanto, a comma before por ke is common and recommended, because por ke introduces a subordinate clause with its own verb (resaniĝu).

You’ll often see:

• Ŝi trinkas varman teon, por ke la gorĝo resaniĝu pli rapide.

The comma isn’t absolutely mandatory by hard rule, but it improves clarity and matches typical Esperanto style. It’s good practice to include it.

What exactly does por ke mean, and how is it different from just por?

• por + infinitive expresses purpose using a verb in its basic form:

  • por resaniĝi = in order to recover

• por ke + full clause expresses purpose with its own subject and verb:

  • por ke la gorĝo resaniĝu = so that the throat may recover

In your sentence, the purpose is expressed as a full clause with its own subject (la gorĝo), so Esperanto uses por ke, not just por.

Why is the verb resaniĝu and not resaniĝas or resaniĝi?

resaniĝu uses the -u ending, which is the volitive/“subjunctive-like” mood in Esperanto. After por ke, Esperanto normally uses this form to express purpose, wish, intention, or something desired:

• Ŝi trinkas varman teon, por ke la gorĝo resaniĝu pli rapide.
  = She drinks hot tea so that the throat (will/may) get better faster.

Compare:

• resaniĝas = (is) recovering / recovers (factual, indicative)
• resaniĝi = to recover (infinitive form, used after por without ke)
• resaniĝu = may recover / should recover / let it recover (volitive)

So por ke … resaniĝu is the standard pattern for “so that … may …”.

Why is it la gorĝo instead of ŝia gorĝo (“her throat”)?

In Esperanto, for body parts and close personal belongings, it is very common to use the definite article instead of a possessive pronoun when the owner is obvious from context:

• Ŝi fermis la okulojn. = She closed (her) eyes.
• Li levis la manon. = He raised (his) hand.
• Ŝi trinkas varman teon, por ke la gorĝo resaniĝu pli rapide.
  = She drinks hot tea so that (her) throat gets better faster.

You can say ŝia gorĝo, and it’s correct, but la gorĝo is more typical and slightly more neutral or impersonal-sounding.

Why doesn’t gorĝo have an -n ending (gorĝon)?

Inside the clause por ke la gorĝo resaniĝu pli rapide, the noun la gorĝo is the subject of the verb resaniĝu, not an object.

• Subject: no -n
  • La gorĝo resaniĝu. = The throat may recover.
• Direct object: add -n
  • Mi kuracas la gorĝon. = I treat the throat.

So la gorĝo logically stays in the nominative form (no -n).

Why is it pli rapide and not pli rapida?

rapide is the adverb form (“quickly”), while rapida is the adjective form (“quick”).

Here, you’re describing how the throat recovers (the manner of the action), so you need an adverb:

• rapide = quickly
• pli rapide = more quickly / faster
• resaniĝu pli rapide = may recover more quickly

If you said pli rapida, you’d be describing a noun (a “more quick” something), which is not what is happening here.

What does resaniĝi literally mean, and why is there -iĝ- in it?

The verb resaniĝi is built from:

• re- = again, back
• sana = healthy
• -iĝ- = become, turn into a state
• -i = infinitive verb ending

So resaniĝi literally means “to become healthy again” → “to recover, to get better (after illness).”

The -iĝ- suffix turns an adjective or state into an intransitive change-of-state verb:

• varma → varmiĝi = to become warm
• pura → puriĝi = to become clean
• sana → saniĝi = to become healthy
  resaniĝi = to become healthy again (recover)

In your sentence, resaniĝu is the volitive form of resaniĝi.

Could I instead say Ŝi trinkas varman teon por resaniĝi pli rapide? What would be the difference?

Yes, that’s also grammatical, but it changes the focus slightly.

• Ŝi trinkas varman teon, por ke la gorĝo resaniĝu pli rapide.
  Focus: the throat as the thing that should recover faster. It has its own subject (la gorĝo).

• Ŝi trinkas varman teon por resaniĝi pli rapide.
  Focus: she herself wants to recover faster.
  Here, the subject of resaniĝi is understood to be ŝi (“in order to recover herself more quickly”).

In context, both likely mean the same thing, but por ke la gorĝo resaniĝu highlights the throat explicitly.