"Ni ne estu viktimoj!"
Translation:Let's not be victims!
13 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
The correct answer was "we shall not be victims." It rejected "...should not be victims." (reported) Really? And if "should not be" isn't correct, how would one say that?
You're right. "We should not be victims" (and "Let us not be victims") should be correct. This sort of volitional use of "shall" is pretty odd, and not in common use these days. A better translation of "We shall not be victims" would be "Ni ne estos viktimoj".
The volitional (emphatic) future tense in English is a little odd: In first person (I and we), "shall" is used for the simple future and "will" is used for volitional emphasis. "I shall go" is simply saying that in the future I am going to be going; "I will go" adds that I am promising to go — nothing will stop me.
For second and third person (you, he, she, it, they), it's reversed: the simple future uses "will," the volitional future uses "shall."
I believe you could say "Ni ne devus esti viktimoj" to say "We SHOULD not be victims."
343
Here you have estu, which is imperative. We will not.. is declarative and should be translated with estos
- 2100
As estu is an imperative should 'we are not victims' not also be equally valid here, as a declaration?
I know that the -u suffix is often used to express 'let us...' etc. but is there any reason why the above is /not/ a valid interpretation?
It's not valid because:
We are not victims = Ni ne estas viktimoj.
No imperative form.
It makes me think of a coach saying, now let's all go out there and not be victims.