La kuracisto donas al mi tiun medikamenton por ke mi pli rapide resaniĝu.

The doctor gives me that medicine so that I may recover more quickly.

Breakdown of La kuracisto donas al mi tiun medikamenton por ke mi pli rapide resaniĝu.

• mi: I
• rapide: quickly
• al: to
• mi: me
• pli: more
• tiu: that
• kuracisto: the doctor
• doni: to give
• medikamento: the medicine
• por ke: so that
• resaniĝi: to recover

Questions & Answers about La kuracisto donas al mi tiun medikamenton por ke mi pli rapide resaniĝu.

Why does medikamenton end in -n, but kuracisto and mi do not?

The -n is the accusative ending, which marks the direct object of the verb.

• La kuracisto = the doctor → subject (the one doing the action), so no -n.
• donas = gives.
• tiun medikamenton = that medicine → what is being given → direct object → takes -n.
• al mi = to me → indirect object, shown by the preposition al, so it does not need the accusative -n.

So:

• Subject: La kuracisto
• Verb: donas
• Direct object: tiun medikamenton → -n
• Indirect object: al mi → preposition al replaces the need for -n

Why is it por ke mi pli rapide resaniĝu and not por ke mi pli rapide resaniĝas?

After por ke, Esperanto normally uses the -u form (the volitive), not the ordinary present tense -as.

• por ke introduces a purpose clause for a different subject:
  • La kuracisto donas … por ke mi …
    The doctor does X so that I can do Y.

Because it expresses purpose / desired outcome, Esperanto uses resaniĝu (volitive mood), not resaniĝas (simple present).

Compare:

• Mi resaniĝas. = I am recovering / I recover. (statement of fact)
• … por ke mi resaniĝu. = … so that I may recover / in order that I recover. (goal / intention)

What exactly is the -u form in resaniĝu, and when is it used?

The -u ending is the volitive mood in Esperanto. It’s used for:

1. Wishes, commands, requests

   • Resaniĝu baldaŭ! – Get well soon!
   • Ni iru. – Let’s go.

2. Purpose clauses after expressions like:

   • por ke – so that, in order that
   • tiel ke (in some uses) – so that (when it implies intention)

In your sentence:

• por ke mi pli rapide resaniĝu
  literally: so that I may recover more quickly → intended result, so -u is appropriate.

Could I say por resaniĝi pli rapide instead of por ke mi pli rapide resaniĝu?

Not in this exact sentence, because the subject changes.

• Main clause subject: la kuracisto (the doctor)
• Subordinate clause subject: mi (I)

In Esperanto:

• If the subject of the purpose is the same as the main subject, you can use por + infinitive:

  • Mi prenas tiun medikamenton por resaniĝi pli rapide.
    I take that medicine to recover more quickly.
    (Both actions have the same subject: mi.)

• If the subject is different, you must use por ke + -u:

  • La kuracisto donas al mi tiun medikamenton por ke mi pli rapide resaniĝu.
    The doctor (subject 1) gives the medicine so that I (subject 2) recover.

So here, por resaniĝi pli rapide would sound as if the doctor wants himself to recover more quickly, which is not the intended meaning.

Can I change the word order in donas al mi tiun medikamenton to donas tiun medikamenton al mi?

Yes, both are correct:

• La kuracisto donas al mi tiun medikamenton.
• La kuracisto donas tiun medikamenton al mi.

Esperanto allows relatively free word order, especially when roles are clear from -n and from prepositions like al.

The difference is mostly one of emphasis / rhythm:

• donas al mi tiun medikamenton slightly highlights al mi first (to me).
• donas tiun medikamenton al mi slightly highlights tiun medikamenton (that medicine).

Both would normally be understood the same way in context.

Why is it rapide (with -e) and not rapida? What is the difference?

In Esperanto:

• -a → adjective (describes a noun)

  • rapida resaniĝo – a quick recovery

• -e → adverb (describes a verb, an adjective, or another adverb)

  • resaniĝi rapide – to recover quickly

In the sentence:

• mi pli rapide resaniĝu
  
  • resaniĝu is a verb, so you use the adverb form rapide.
  • pli rapide = more quickly.

So rapide is correct here because it describes how the action resaniĝu happens.

Where does pli belong? Could I say mi resaniĝu pli rapide instead of mi pli rapide resaniĝu?

Yes, both are grammatically correct:

• … por ke mi pli rapide resaniĝu.
• … por ke mi resaniĝu pli rapide.

Word order for pli is flexible as long as it is clear what it modifies. It combines with rapide to form pli rapide (more quickly), and that unit modifies resaniĝu.

Subtle difference:

• mi pli rapide resaniĝu slightly foregrounds the speed change.
• mi resaniĝu pli rapide sounds a bit more neutral in rhythm.

In everyday usage, both are natural.

What is the structure and meaning of resaniĝu?

resaniĝu can be broken down like this:

• re- = again / back
• san = healthy (root from sana)
• -iĝ- = to become, to get (intransitive)
• -u = volitive mood ending

So:

• resaniĝi = to become healthy again → to recover, to get well again.
• resaniĝu (volitive) = may (someone) recover / (someone) should recover.

In the sentence:

• por ke mi pli rapide resaniĝu = so that I may recover more quickly.

Why medikamento and not something like kuracilo or medicino? Are they different?

These words are related but not identical in usage:

• medikamento – a medicine as a product (a drug, a pharmaceutical).
  This is the usual precise term for something a doctor prescribes.

• kuracilo – literally a curing tool / remedy (kurac- = cure, -il- = tool).
  Can be broader: anything used to cure (even herbal remedies, traditional measures).

• medicino – usually the science or field of medicine, not a pill or syrup.

  • studi medicinon – to study medicine (as a field).

In context of a doctor giving a specific drug, medikamento is the most straightforward choice.

Why is it la kuracisto and not just kuracisto? Does la here mean “my doctor”?

The article la means “the”, not specifically “my.” However, in many contexts “the doctor” can function like “my doctor” in English, depending on situation.

• La kuracisto donas al mi…
  → The doctor gives me…
  This could be:
  • a specific doctor already known in the conversation, or
  • “the doctor” currently treating the speaker.

You could say:

• Kuracisto donas al mi… = A doctor gives me…
  This sounds more indefinite, as if you are introducing some random doctor, not a specific one.

So la kuracisto suggests a specific, identified doctor, which is natural in this context.

Why do we use al mi and not min after donas?

donas (gives) typically has:

• A direct object: the thing being given → accusative -n
• An indirect object: the recipient → usually with al

In this sentence:

• tiun medikamenton = direct object → -n
• al mi = indirect object → introduced by preposition al

You cannot simply use min here:

• *La kuracisto donas min tiun medikamenton. ❌ (ungrammatical / nonsense)

al mi literally means to me, which is exactly how recipients of giving are expressed in Esperanto.

Why does tiun also end in -n? How does it agree with medikamenton?

tiu is a demonstrative (that), and when it behaves like an adjective before a noun, it:

1. Takes -n if the noun is in the accusative.
2. Can optionally take -j if the noun is plural.

In your sentence:

• medikamenton:
  
  • singular noun
  • accusative -n (direct object)
• tiu modifying medikamenton:
  • becomes tiun to match the case of the noun.

So:

• tiu medikamento – that medicine (subject)
• tiun medikamenton – that medicine (object)

The agreement keeps it clear that tiun medikamenton is the direct object of donas.