"Let us double the recipe!"

Translation:Ni duobligu la recepton!

September 1, 2015

This discussion is locked.


So, it's either duobligi or duobliĝi ? Duobli isn't a thing?


It's not in PIV, but I suppose according to the general rule that adjectives can be verbed, it could mean "to be double".


I'm confused with the imperatives here. It sounds like to me, that an unspecified group of people (ni) want to double a recipe, however, another unspecified person does not allow them. "Ni" then commands them to allow them to agree.

So, given this, shouldn't the translate be something like "Permesu nin duobligi la recepton!" which would be like "Allow/Let us to-double/double the recipe!"

The actual correct answer sounds weird to me. If I were to have to translate it, I'd think something like

Ni duobligu la recepton! -> We should double the recipe! (Which, obviously is a completely different meaning.)

What am I missing here?


The -u ending is used when there's some kind of pressure to do something. The pressure can be in the form of a direct order (venu), or an expression of desire (Mi volas ke vi venu.) Sometimes this pressure is expressed in English as "should" or "let's."

  • Ni duobligu la recepton! = Let's double the recipe.
  • Ni devus duobligi la recepton = We should double the recipe.

"Let's double the recipe" is the same kind of pressure as "I want us to double the recipe" so we use the -u ending. When you say "we should" in this context, you're suggesting an outside obligation which you might not actually act on, so you use "devus."

Another way to look at it:

  • Ni X-u = Let's X.


I'm not a native English speaker so I may be wrong but here's what I think.

"we should double" = "ni devus duobligi" expresses some kind of necessity: "There are twice as much people than expected; we should double the recipe."

"let's double" = "ni duobligu" expresses a desire to do so: "I want to have chocolate cake for the whole week. Let's double the recipe."

Learn Esperanto in just 5 minutes a day. For free.