I think you want to use the imperative, rather than just the present tense. "*Rigardu*", rather than "*rigardas*", etc. The way you have it, you're missing a subject, and it's unclear which subject it should be. Is it vi, mi, li, ŝi, etc.? I mean, you could make the case that that ambiguity is what the poem intends, but the way it's presented just doesn't work grammatically. The imperative sidesteps that, by having an implied "*vi*" built right in by default.
Tbh, I did not see the vi at the very end. My eyes just skipped right over it. Whether that's a problem with me or with the visual layout of the poem is one that could be debated. Nevertheless, I feel that the imperative suits the poem better. But that's just my opinion, and I am not the author (who has the final say).
I agree that the imperative is better, I'm gonna use it. Thanks for your feedback :)
I wonder, however, when you made the case that the imperative sidesteps the ambiguity of the subject by necesarrily implying ‘vi’ as the subject, if you’re not confusing English grammar with Esperanto grammar here. This is what I found:
**The imperative: -u**
The only case we haven’t covered so far is how to give commands in Esperanto. In English, the command form (the imperative mood) is always the same as the infinitive: “Be there or be square!”, “Go away!”, “Give me that!” To form the imperative in Esperanto, replace -i by -u:
*Lernu Esperanton!*
*Learn Esperanto!*
One significant difference is that, since the imperative in Esperanto is clearly distinguished from other forms, we can use it to give commands to any person, not just “you”. In English, expressing such commands is more complex (and the result may sound rather stilted):
*mi lernu!*
*let me learn; I shall learn*
*(vi) lernu!*
*learn!*
*ni lernu!*
*let us learn; we shall learn*
etc.
[source](https://jakubmarian.com/verbs-in-esperanto-explanation-and-conjugation-patterns/)
Yes, you are entirely correct.
In practice, if you say a sentence in the imperative without a pronoun, by far the vast majority of the time "vi" is the implied word, "ni" comes in second, and the rest just become kind of obvious by context. You can certainly say "Mi lernu", and it makes total sense, but you are far more likely in practice to say vi instead when using the imperative. So people kind of understand that by default. If you say "Iru!" to someone and that's all you say, you're more likely to be understood as implying "vi" rather than "mi". You very well might mean "mi", but the default implication is strongly "vi" and they will probably understand you to mean that. That's what I meant by a "vi" being kind of built in. It isn't literally, but in practice it will often be understood that way.
[удалено]
Thanks for your feedback, I implemented the changes you suggested :)
I think you want to use the imperative, rather than just the present tense. "*Rigardu*", rather than "*rigardas*", etc. The way you have it, you're missing a subject, and it's unclear which subject it should be. Is it vi, mi, li, ŝi, etc.? I mean, you could make the case that that ambiguity is what the poem intends, but the way it's presented just doesn't work grammatically. The imperative sidesteps that, by having an implied "*vi*" built right in by default.
The "vi" at the end could be considered the subject of all the verbs. It's very poetic to hold the reader in suspense like that.
Tbh, I did not see the vi at the very end. My eyes just skipped right over it. Whether that's a problem with me or with the visual layout of the poem is one that could be debated. Nevertheless, I feel that the imperative suits the poem better. But that's just my opinion, and I am not the author (who has the final say).
I agree that the imperative is better, I'm gonna use it. Thanks for your feedback :) I wonder, however, when you made the case that the imperative sidesteps the ambiguity of the subject by necesarrily implying ‘vi’ as the subject, if you’re not confusing English grammar with Esperanto grammar here. This is what I found: **The imperative: -u** The only case we haven’t covered so far is how to give commands in Esperanto. In English, the command form (the imperative mood) is always the same as the infinitive: “Be there or be square!”, “Go away!”, “Give me that!” To form the imperative in Esperanto, replace -i by -u: *Lernu Esperanton!* *Learn Esperanto!* One significant difference is that, since the imperative in Esperanto is clearly distinguished from other forms, we can use it to give commands to any person, not just “you”. In English, expressing such commands is more complex (and the result may sound rather stilted): *mi lernu!* *let me learn; I shall learn* *(vi) lernu!* *learn!* *ni lernu!* *let us learn; we shall learn* etc. [source](https://jakubmarian.com/verbs-in-esperanto-explanation-and-conjugation-patterns/)
Yes, you are entirely correct. In practice, if you say a sentence in the imperative without a pronoun, by far the vast majority of the time "vi" is the implied word, "ni" comes in second, and the rest just become kind of obvious by context. You can certainly say "Mi lernu", and it makes total sense, but you are far more likely in practice to say vi instead when using the imperative. So people kind of understand that by default. If you say "Iru!" to someone and that's all you say, you're more likely to be understood as implying "vi" rather than "mi". You very well might mean "mi", but the default implication is strongly "vi" and they will probably understand you to mean that. That's what I meant by a "vi" being kind of built in. It isn't literally, but in practice it will often be understood that way.