DuckFiasco:Also possible: "Mi bezonas akvon trinki" without "por".

This is something I've been uncertain about, the use of "por" with verbs. Is there any difference between saying "Mi bezonas akvon trinki" and "Mi bezonas akvon por trinki", or are they exactly the same?

pobotay:

DuckFiasco:Also possible: "Mi bezonas akvon trinki" without "por".

This is something I've been uncertain about, the use of "por" with verbs. Is there any difference between saying "Mi bezonas akvon trinki" and "Mi bezonas akvon por trinki", or are they exactly the same?

Mi bezonas akvon trinki = Mi bezonas trinki akvon - I need to drink water.

Mi bezonas akvon por trinki - I need water to drink.

pobotay:

DuckFiasco:Also possible: "Mi bezonas akvon trinki" without "por".

This is something I've been uncertain about, the use of "por" with verbs. Is there any difference between saying "Mi bezonas akvon trinki" and "Mi bezonas akvon por trinki", or are they exactly the same?

Por in Esperanto corresponds to for in English, more or less. When you say por trinki in Esperanto, it is like saying for to drink in English, just not as old-timey or high-falutin'. If you could say "for to X" in English without it sounding outright wrong, then "por X-i" is probably right in Esperanto.

Mi bezonas trinki akvon. = I need to drink water.
Mi bezonas por trinki akvon. = I need for to drink water.

That second sentence just doesn't sound right, but the first is a perfectly natural thing to say.

Mi bezonas akvon por trinki. = I need water for to drink.

Now, the English there is certainly a bit dated, but it's not outright wrong. Usually, we would leave "for" out of the sentence, but the word order still implies that "to drink" is the purpose for which you need water.

So, my rule of thumb as an English-speaking eterna(?) komencanto, is to try it in English with "for". If it still makes sense, then the Esperanto needs "por". If not, then no "por". I rarely need to run it through English anymore, but every so often, this is still helpful for me.

Breto:
Mi bezonas por trinki akvon. = I need for to drink water.

This particular sentence (the English part) is common in Yorkshire/Lancashire/Cumbria areas of England. Usually said as: 'I need f't drink water'. A glottal-stop is on the 'for to'.

It seems like a normal sentence to me.

Vestitor:

Breto:
Mi bezonas por trinki akvon. = I need for to drink water.

This particular sentence (the English part) is common in Yorkshire/Lancashire/Cumbria areas of England. Usually said as: 'I need f't drink water'. A glottal-stop is on the 'for to'.

It seems like a normal sentence to me.

Hmm...I guess that makes my comment a bit less helpful, then. It works for my personal idiolect, at least.

Okay. Let's say that someone is dying of thirst in the desert. If they don't get water soon, they will die. Which one would they use?

Mi bezonas akvon
Mi devas akiri akvon

Alkanadi:Okay. Let's say that someone is dying of thirst in the desert. If they don't get water soon, they will die. Which one would they use?

Mi bezonas akvon
Mi devas akiri akvon

Aakvooooon!

Breto:

pobotay:

DuckFiasco:Also possible: "Mi bezonas akvon trinki" without "por".

This is something I've been uncertain about, the use of "por" with verbs. Is there any difference between saying "Mi bezonas akvon trinki" and "Mi bezonas akvon por trinki", or are they exactly the same?

Por in Esperanto corresponds to for in English, more or less. When you say por trinki in Esperanto, it is like saying for to drink in English, just not as old-timey or high-falutin'. If you could say "for to X" in English without it sounding outright wrong, then "por X-i" is probably right in Esperanto.

Dankon Breto. Interestingly "for to drink" wouldn't have made sense for me, but "por trinki" seemed right when thinking in Esperanto, which is how the question arose. Vesistor's comment about "for to drink" being a normal sentence surprised me, but they do speak differently oop north

Alkanadi:Okay. Let's say that someone is dying of thirst in the desert. If they don't get water soon, they will die. Which one would they use?

Mi bezonas akvon
Mi devas akiri akvon

Both seem fine to me, if I was writing a story I'd use the second because it conveys slightly more information.