Al la enhavo
Respondi

Correct interpretation of 'nemalhavebla'

de kekkus, 2026-marto-25

Mesaĝoj: 7

Lingvo: English

kekkus (Montri la profilon) 2026-marto-25 20:38:58

I saw this word in the grammar guide and was quite confused because it seemed counter intuitive to how I thought about the prefix 'mal'.
So the word is 'ne-mal-hav-ebl-a' which is quite a lot.
'havebla' would mean haveable. And so in my mind since 'mal' denotes the opposite, 'malhavebla' would be 'unhaveable' but that doesn't seem to be the case. Apparently it's 'dispensable' and so 'nemalhavebla' is 'indispensable'. But then what is 'unhaveable' in esperanto?
Is this just counter intuitive for me or is this one case of 'you just have to learn it'? Are there more of those weird ones?

Vgic (Montri la profilon) 2026-marto-26 04:27:44

I´m new so to Esperanto, so I might not be getting this right.

First, the word for ´unhaveable´ would be ´nehavebla.´ Literally ´not having possible.´

Second, I think what is going on with ´nemalhavebla´ is that the ´ne-´ is modifying the ´-mal-´ so that it comes out literally as something like ´not unhaving possible´ or indispensable.

Altebrilas (Montri la profilon) 2026-marto-26 09:51:27

Something you can't do without.

kekkus (Montri la profilon) 2026-marto-26 15:39:07

Yeah, but why? As I said: using logic it would make sense to me that 'malhavebla' is 'unhaveable'. But it isn't. If I understood why 'malhavebla' is 'dispensible' instead, I could reasonably conclude why 'nemalhavebla' would have to be 'indispensible'.

Made_of_Life (Montri la profilon) 2026-marto-27 11:08:17

I’m new to Esperanto too but I think you’re supposed to interpret it like this:
“malhav” = “unhave” = “to get rid of something”
so “malhavebla” = “dispensable” and “nemalhavebla” = “indispensable”

kekkus (Montri la profilon) 2026-marto-28 09:38:54

Ahhhhh that would make sense! Thank you!
I'm guessing that you always 'evaluate' the prefix and then the suffix?

amigueo (Montri la profilon) 2026-aprilo-15 22:06:21

kekkus:Ahhhhh that would make sense! Thank you!
I'm guessing that you always 'evaluate' the prefix and then the suffix?
I find it interesting that the order of "evaluation" of the affixes is not so rigid or clear.
The classical "neebla = kiu ne povas esti, aŭ, kiu ne povas esti neata".

About "nemalhavebla" we could consider "malnehavebla".
nemalhavebla = malnehavebla?

What is the difference between "nemalhavebla" and "nemalmankebla"?

Reen al la supro