La pordo de la hotelo estas ankoraŭ malfermita.

The door of the hotel is still open.

Breakdown of La pordo de la hotelo estas ankoraŭ malfermita.

• esti: to be
• la: the
• ankoraŭ: still
• de: of
• pordo: the door
• hotelo: the hotel
• malfermita: open

Questions & Answers about La pordo de la hotelo estas ankoraŭ malfermita.

What does ankoraŭ mean here, and does it always mean still?

In this sentence, ankoraŭ means still: the door continues to be in the state of being open.

ankoraŭ has two main uses:

1. still / yet (continuing state)

   • La pordo estas ankoraŭ malfermita. – The door is still open.
   • Li ankoraŭ dormas. – He is still sleeping.

2. yet (up to now, often with a negative)

   • La pordo ankoraŭ ne estas malfermita. – The door is not open yet.

So ankoraŭ can correspond to still or (not) yet, depending on context and whether the sentence is positive or negative.

Why malfermita and not malferma? Aren’t they both related to “open”?

Both are related to the idea of being open, but they focus on slightly different things.

• malfermita is the past passive participle of malfermi (to open).
  It describes a resulting state after an action:

  • La pordo estas malfermita.
    = The door is in the state of having been opened / being open.

• malferma is a simple adjective meaning open (as a property):

  • La pordo estas malferma. – The door is open.

Traditional grammar advice:

• malfermita – emphasizes that someone/something opened it, and now it is in that state.
• malferma – treats open as a general property; no focus on the opening action.

In everyday Esperanto, both estas malfermita and estas malferma are commonly used to mean is open, and most speakers won’t feel a big difference in this context. The version with -ita is a bit more in line with the “result of an action” logic of the participles.

Why is it malfermita (with -ita) and not something like malfermata?

Esperanto participles distinguish ongoing action from completed result:

• malfermata = being opened (the action is in progress)
• malfermita = (already) opened (the action is finished; result state)

So:

• La pordo estas malfermata.
  → The door is being opened. (someone is in the process of opening it)

• La pordo estas malfermita.
  → The door has been opened / is open. (the action happened earlier; now we see the result)

Your sentence is describing the current state of the door, not an ongoing action. That’s why malfermita is used.

Why do we say malfermita (with mal-) instead of just fermita?

In Esperanto, mal- is a very productive prefix meaning the direct opposite.

• fermi – to close
• fermita – closed
• malfermi – to open
• malfermita – opened / open

So:

• La pordo estas fermita. – The door is closed.
• La pordo estas malfermita. – The door is open.

Whenever you see mal- in front of a word, expect the meaning to be the opposite of the base word.

Why is estas needed? Can I just say La pordo de la hotelo ankoraŭ malfermita?

In normal, standard Esperanto prose, you need estas (or another form of esti) to make a sentence like this:

• La pordo de la hotelo estas ankoraŭ malfermita.

Without estas, ankoraŭ malfermita would just be a loose description, not a full grammatical predicate. Omitting estas is only seen in:

• poetry
• very informal, telegraphic style
• some fixed expressions

For clear, correct Esperanto, include estas here.

Why is it la pordo de la hotelo instead of something like “the hotel’s door” using a special ending?

Esperanto doesn’t have an ’s-style possessive ending like English. Instead, it uses the preposition de for of / belonging to:

• la pordo de la hotelo – the door of the hotel / the hotel’s door
• la libro de mia amiko – my friend’s book

So the structure is:

[thing] de [owner]
la pordo de la hotelo = the door of the hotel

Could I also say la hotela pordo or la hotelpordo? Are they the same as la pordo de la hotelo?

All three are possible, but there are small differences in nuance:

1. la pordo de la hotelo

   • Very explicit: the door of the hotel.
   • Focus on the ownership/association.

2. la hotela pordo

   • Literally the hotel-ish door / the hotel door.
   • Treats hotel- as an adjective (hotela), like hotel door in English.
   • Often fine as a stylistic variation; context usually makes it clear.

3. la hotelpordo

   • A compound word: hotel+pordo.
   • Means hotel door more generically (a door of a hotel / type of door you find on hotels).
   • With la, it can still refer to a specific one, but it sounds a bit more like a concept or type.

In a concrete situation (talking about one particular hotel and its door), la pordo de la hotelo is the clearest and most neutral choice.

Why is it la hotelo, not just hotelo? Do we always need la here?

In this sentence, la hotelo refers to a specific, known hotel. That’s why la (the) is used.

General rule:

• la hotelo – the hotel (specific one, known from context)
• hotelo – a hotel / any hotel (indefinite, not specific)

If you meant any hotel’s door in general, you might say:

• La pordo de hotelo ofte estas granda.
  – The door of a hotel is often large.

But if you mean that particular hotel we’re talking about now, la hotelo is appropriate.

Can I move ankoraŭ around? For example: La pordo de la hotelo ankoraŭ estas malfermita or La pordo de la hotelo estas malfermita ankoraŭ?

Yes, Esperanto word order is flexible, and all of these are understandable:

• La pordo de la hotelo estas ankoraŭ malfermita.
• La pordo de la hotelo ankoraŭ estas malfermita.
• La pordo de la hotelo estas malfermita ankoraŭ.

However, stylistically:

• ankoraŭ is most commonly placed just before the word it modifies.
• In your original sentence, ankoraŭ clearly modifies the state malfermita, which is natural: it is still open.

So the original:

La pordo de la hotelo estas ankoraŭ malfermita.

is very typical and clear.
The version ankoraŭ estas malfermita can sound a bit more like the “being” (esti) is still going on, which is also understandable but slightly different in feel. The last option (… malfermita ankoraŭ) is less common and can sound a little literary or emphatic.

Why doesn’t malfermita end in -n (accusative)? I thought most objects take -n.

The -n ending (accusative) is used mainly for:

• direct objects of verbs
• some special functions (direction, etc.)

In this sentence, malfermita is not an object. It’s a predicative adjective describing the subject la pordo de la hotelo:

• La pordo de la hotelo (subject)
• estas (verb)
• ankoraŭ malfermita (predicate describing the subject)

Predicate adjectives and participles that describe the subject do not take -n:

• La pordo estas fermita. – The door is closed.
• La infano estas laca. – The child is tired.
• La pordo estas malfermita. – The door is open.

What is the difference between estas malfermita and malfermiĝas?

They describe different kinds of situations:

• estas malfermita

  • Focus on a state: the door is open (after someone opened it).
  • Your sentence: La pordo de la hotelo estas ankoraŭ malfermita.
    = The hotel door is still open.

• malfermiĝas (from malfermiĝi)

  • Focus on the process / event of becoming open, often spontaneous or without a visible agent:
  • La pordo malfermiĝas. – The door opens / is opening.

If you said:

• La pordo de la hotelo ankoraŭ malfermiĝas.

that would suggest the door is still in the process of opening, rather than already open and simply remaining open. That’s not what the original sentence is saying.

Is there any difference between using ankoraŭ and something like daŭre here?

Both can be translated as still, but they have different flavors:

• ankoraŭ – “up to this point, it remains so”

  • La pordo estas ankoraŭ malfermita.
    – The door is still (not yet stopped being) open.

• daŭre – “continually, continuously” (from daŭri, to last/continue)

  • La pordo estas daŭre malfermita.
    – The door is continuously open / keeps being open.

In many everyday contexts, ankoraŭ is the most natural choice for still, as in your sentence.
Daŭre puts more emphasis on a continuous, perhaps long-lasting situation.