<p>One also has to bear in mind polysemy: a word that might correspond to one concept in English might translate to two different words in Spanish or German. A classic example is “corner”, which can be translated to Spanish as either <em>rincón</em> or <em>esquina</em>, depending on whether one is talking about an “inside” or “outside” corner. I went to check how Esperanto deals with that particular word and found that eo <em>angulo</em> refers not only to both kinds of corners, <a href="https://en.bab.la/dictionary/esperanto-english/angulo" rel="noreferrer">but additionally also means “angle”</a>. </p>

<p>So yes, Esperanto clearly has polysemies.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-14T12:47:19.997Z
2018-02-14T12:47:19.997Z
Sascha Baer
<p>One such word is <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vato#Esperanto" rel="noreferrer">vato</a>, which means both "watt" and "cotton wool.</p>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_phonology#Proper_names_and_borrowings" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> says that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>the physical unit "Watt" was first borrowed as ŭato, to distinguish it from vato ('cotton-wool'), and this is the only form found in dictionaries in 1930. However, initial ⟨ŭ⟩ violates Esperanto phonotactics, and by 1970 there was an alternative spelling, vatto. This was also unsatisfactory, however, because of the geminate ⟨t⟩, and by 2000 the effort had been given up, with ⟨vato⟩ now the advised spelling for both "Watt" and "cotton-wool".</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-14T08:50:44.547Z
2018-02-14T08:50:44.547Z
b a
<p>In addition to the examples cited above, it's worth noting that due to Esperanto's extensive use of derivation and encouragement to use affixes as productively as possible, there is the potential for semantic ambiguity to arise. This occurs when a string that is an affix also occurs within a root word. For example, the suffix <em>-em</em> means "a tendency/propensity for...", deriving words like <em>kompatema</em> "charitable" and <em>kompatemo</em> "charity/mercifulness" from <em>kompato</em> "compasson, pity". However, what of a word like <em>modemo</em>? The root <em>mod-</em> means "fashion", so upon encountering this word you might assume it means "tendency to be fashionable" or something like that, but it's also a root of its own meaning "modem". </p>

<p>Now, realistically, this would be distinguishable from context, but then again that's the case for "watt" vs. "cotton wool" too. These sorts of weird ambiguities based on affixes are pretty rare anyway, and I don't think there's anything wrong with Esperanto having a few, but they aren't nonexistent.</p>

<p>Also, it's worth noting that when it came to "logical, regular design", Zamenhof was mostly concerned with avoiding irregularities in inflection and derivation. I'd argue he didn't <em>quite</em> succeed, but he definitely cared more about that than he did polysemy.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-11T07:06:32.710Z
@ba I don't think adding a link to an extremely lengthy post is particularly useful -- perhaps providing an excerpt or (if possible) a direct link to the section with the examples you describe? It's not very helpful to expect someone to scroll down through.
Sparksbet
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-11T08:17:26.840Z
I suppose it's better than nothing if a link doesn't work -- though I think it would be better if you included some of the examples in your comment instead!
Sparksbet
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-11T09:31:14.503Z
There are some more examples of this [here](http://inf.ufrgs.br/~vbuaraujo/misc/kontrauranto/) (Appendix W), like "acheto" ("purchase" or "contemptible little thing")
b a
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-02-14T16:15:30.743Z
2018-10-16T08:38:37.533Z
2018-10-16T08:38:37.533Z
Sparksbet
<p>The selection of words in Esperanto tried to prevent:</p>

<ul>
<li><strong>homonyms</strong>, same sounding words: <code>trajn/o</code> = <em>train</em>, railroad, <code>trejn/ist/o</code> = <em>trainer</em>; but also <code>poliso</code> = (insurance) <em>policy</em>, <code>politiko</code> = <em>policy</em>, measure</li>
<li><strong>word parts</strong> that could be mistaken as infixes; partly with artificial changes (<code>kun</code> - instead of <code>kon*</code> = <em>with / in company,</em> as many latin derived words start with <code>kon</code> (<code>kongreso</code>, <code>kontraŭ</code>)</li>
<li><strong>synonyms</strong>, picking different words, if a word holds different meanings</li>
<li><strong>false friends</strong> in other languages (<code>tago</code> = <em>day</em> - instead of <code>deo*</code>, <code>dio</code> = <em>god</em>, <code>bona</code> = <em>good</em>)</li>
</ul>

<p>This makes Esperanto a more disambiguating language in some respects. It is not one hundred percent perfect, <code>ŭato</code> (= <em>Watt</em>) was (unsuccessfully) proposed to disambiguate from <code>vato</code> (= <em>cotton wool</em>). Or <code>plumo</code> = (1) <em>pen</em> (<code>skribilo</code>), (2) <em>feather</em>.</p>

<p><strong>Homography</strong> should not happen in Esperanto: different pronunciations for the same spelling. However related are:</p>

<ol>
<li>The rare letter/sound <code>ĥ</code> that often was reformed to <code>k</code>: <code>ĥemio</code> = <code>kemio</code> = <em>chemistry</em>; both forms valid.</li>
<li>The suffix <code>-uj</code>: <code>franco</code> = <em>Frenchman</em>, <code>Francujo</code> / <code>Francio</code> = <em>France</em>. This suffix was alienated as <code>-ij*</code> would be a phonetically too ambiguous combination for usage in Esperanto. However later in history an <code>-i</code> reform introduced a more "international" form, with its own problems.</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-12T16:09:55.740Z
2018-12-12T16:16:48.533Z
2018-12-12T16:16:48.533Z
Joop Eggen
<p>The term <em>homonym</em> is usually used for words that are spelt the same and pronounced the same, and i think this is what is intended here. Homographs are spelt the same but pronounced differently and homophones are pronounced the same but spelt differently. Both of these <em>shouldn't</em> occur in Esperanto as there is an agreed pronunciation for each. However, to answer the question about homographs, which is clearly a part of the answer:</p>

<p>Various homonyms have been suggested already.</p>

<p>It is a feature of Esperanto, due to the origin of its lexis, that a <em>lot</em> of people know <em>some</em> of the words from their first language and there is always a temptation to pronounce these in the way more similar to that language. That means that wherever there are homonyms they may end up as homographs. To take <em>vato</em> as an example, people may pronounce this as in their first language, even if they are meant to pronounce it the same as the word meaning "cotton wool*.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-17T21:34:55.220Z
2018-10-17T21:46:18.433Z
2018-10-17T21:46:18.433Z
David Robinson
<p>The words <em>plaĝo</em> &amp; <em>strando</em> both mean beach. Another example is <em>kruro</em> &amp; <em>gambo</em> for leg. See <a href="https://esperanto.stackexchange.com/questions/1033/what-is-the-difference-between-gambo-and-kruro/5888?noredirect=1#comment6932_5888">this question</a>. Plaĝo is from French <em>plage</em>. My guess is strando comes from the Norwegian word <em>stranden</em> meaning 'bay'. EDIT: According to wiktionary <em>strand</em> is from the Old English word for shore/seashore. Norwegian is a Germanic language, so <em>stranden</em> may have come from <em>strand</em>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-08T07:59:45.447Z
This is synonymy, not homonymy.
Radovan Garabík
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-06T14:09:35.273Z
2021-09-06T14:22:56.860Z
2021-09-06T14:22:56.860Z
jastako
<p>Looking at the "<a href="http://esperanto.org/us/USEJ/world/index.html#kio" rel="noreferrer">about Esperanto</a>" page, I see this line:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>While he realized that a common language would not end the cultural barrier, it would enable ordinary people, not politicians, to have cross national conversations. To this end, he created Esperanto, a language that would be easy for most people to learn, due to it's logical, regular design.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Speaking from experience, one of the difficult parts of learning a new language is keeping different meanings straight for words that have different meaning. It's a little hard to bear at times how many words mean many things.</p>

<p>Does Esperanto, with it's "logical, regular design", have any homographs?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-19T21:40:46.867Z
Also see [this list of accidental homophones](http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/hh.html).
bb94
<esperanto>
Does Esperanto have any words that mean more than one thing?
# Does Esperanto have any words that mean more than one thing?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-14)

Looking at the "[about Esperanto](http://esperanto.org/us/USEJ/world/index.html#kio)" page, I see this line:

> While he realized that a common language would not end the cultural barrier, it would enable ordinary people, not politicians, to have cross national conversations. To this end, he created Esperanto, a language that would be easy for most people to learn, due to it's logical, regular design.

Speaking from experience, one of the difficult parts of learning a new language is keeping different meanings straight for words that have different meaning. It's a little hard to bear at times how many words mean many things.

Does Esperanto, with it's "logical, regular design", have any homographs?

**Tags:** esperanto
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Also see [this list of accidental homophones](http://jbr.me.uk/ranto/hh.html).  

---

## 6 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-02-14. Score: 21

One also has to bear in mind polysemy: a word that might correspond to one concept in English might translate to two different words in Spanish or German. A classic example is “corner”, which can be translated to Spanish as either *rincón* or *esquina*, depending on whether one is talking about an “inside” or “outside” corner. I went to check how Esperanto deals with that particular word and found that eo *angulo* refers not only to both kinds of corners, [but additionally also means “angle”](https://en.bab.la/dictionary/esperanto-english/angulo).

So yes, Esperanto clearly has polysemies.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-02-14. Score: 19

One such word is [vato](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vato#Esperanto), which means both "watt" and "cotton wool.

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto_phonology#Proper_names_and_borrowings) says that

> the physical unit "Watt" was first borrowed as ŭato, to distinguish it from vato ('cotton-wool'), and this is the only form found in dictionaries in 1930. However, initial ⟨ŭ⟩ violates Esperanto phonotactics, and by 1970 there was an alternative spelling, vatto. This was also unsatisfactory, however, because of the geminate ⟨t⟩, and by 2000 the effort had been given up, with ⟨vato⟩ now the advised spelling for both "Watt" and "cotton-wool".


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-02-14. Score: 10

In addition to the examples cited above, it's worth noting that due to Esperanto's extensive use of derivation and encouragement to use affixes as productively as possible, there is the potential for semantic ambiguity to arise. This occurs when a string that is an affix also occurs within a root word. For example, the suffix *-em* means "a tendency/propensity for...", deriving words like *kompatema* "charitable" and *kompatemo* "charity/mercifulness" from *kompato* "compasson, pity". However, what of a word like *modemo*? The root *mod-* means "fashion", so upon encountering this word you might assume it means "tendency to be fashionable" or something like that, but it's also a root of its own meaning "modem".

Now, realistically, this would be distinguishable from context, but then again that's the case for "watt" vs. "cotton wool" too. These sorts of weird ambiguities based on affixes are pretty rare anyway, and I don't think there's anything wrong with Esperanto having a few, but they aren't nonexistent.

Also, it's worth noting that when it came to "logical, regular design", Zamenhof was mostly concerned with avoiding irregularities in inflection and derivation. I'd argue he didn't *quite* succeed, but he definitely cared more about that than he did polysemy.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: @ba I don't think adding a link to an extremely lengthy post is particularly useful -- perhaps providing an excerpt or (if possible) a direct link to the section with the examples you describe? It's not very helpful to expect someone to scroll down through.  
> **username_4**: I suppose it's better than nothing if a link doesn't work -- though I think it would be better if you included some of the examples in your comment instead!  
> **username_3**: There are some more examples of this [here](http://inf.ufrgs.br/~vbuaraujo/misc/kontrauranto/) (Appendix W), like "acheto" ("purchase" or "contemptible little thing")  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-12-12. Score: 3

The selection of words in Esperanto tried to prevent:

* **homonyms**, same sounding words: `trajn/o` = *train*, railroad, `trejn/ist/o` = *trainer*; but also `poliso` = (insurance) *policy*, `politiko` = *policy*, measure
* **word parts** that could be mistaken as infixes; partly with artificial changes (`kun` - instead of `kon*` = *with / in company,* as many latin derived words start with `kon` (`kongreso`, `kontraŭ`)
* **synonyms**, picking different words, if a word holds different meanings
* **false friends** in other languages (`tago` = *day* - instead of `deo*`, `dio` = *god*, `bona` = *good*)

This makes Esperanto a more disambiguating language in some respects. It is not one hundred percent perfect, `ŭato` (= *Watt*) was (unsuccessfully) proposed to disambiguate from `vato` (= *cotton wool*). Or `plumo` = (1) *pen* (`skribilo`), (2) *feather*.

**Homography** should not happen in Esperanto: different pronunciations for the same spelling. However related are:

1. The rare letter/sound `ĥ` that often was reformed to `k`: `ĥemio` = `kemio` = *chemistry*; both forms valid.
2. The suffix `-uj`: `franco` = *Frenchman*, `Francujo` / `Francio` = *France*. This suffix was alienated as `-ij*` would be a phonetically too ambiguous combination for usage in Esperanto. However later in history an `-i` reform introduced a more "international" form, with its own problems.


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2018-10-17. Score: 1

The term *homonym* is usually used for words that are spelt the same and pronounced the same, and i think this is what is intended here. Homographs are spelt the same but pronounced differently and homophones are pronounced the same but spelt differently. Both of these *shouldn't* occur in Esperanto as there is an agreed pronunciation for each. However, to answer the question about homographs, which is clearly a part of the answer:

Various homonyms have been suggested already.

It is a feature of Esperanto, due to the origin of its lexis, that a *lot* of people know *some* of the words from their first language and there is always a temptation to pronounce these in the way more similar to that language. That means that wherever there are homonyms they may end up as homographs. To take *vato* as an example, people may pronounce this as in their first language, even if they are meant to pronounce it the same as the word meaning "cotton wool\*.


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2021-09-06. Score: 1

The words *plaĝo* & *strando* both mean beach. Another example is *kruro* & *gambo* for leg. See [this question](https://esperanto.stackexchange.com/questions/1033/what-is-the-difference-between-gambo-and-kruro/5888?noredirect=1#comment6932_5888). Plaĝo is from French *plage*. My guess is strando comes from the Norwegian word *stranden* meaning 'bay'. EDIT: According to wiktionary *strand* is from the Old English word for shore/seashore. Norwegian is a Germanic language, so *stranden* may have come from *strand*.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: This is synonymy, not homonymy.  

---

