Translation:The musician will have to fly to Beijing.
Not completely true. When Beijing got known in the west, the locals themselves still pronounced it as Peking. This is the form that the city entered many European languages. Afterwards there was a sound change in Chinese (compare it with the great english vowel shift). But indeed the current transliteration Beijing (in pinyin) for the current way it is pronounced is way better than the older transliteration. In Wade Gillis the current transliteration would be something like Pei-ching. By the way: the same also happened with Nanking/Nanjing. But I never hear someone in English say Nanjing.
"You must go today and tomorrow you also must go."
I suppose you could get away with that, but the English language guides I've checked say there's no future form.
"You must go today, and tomorrow you will also have to go" just sounds better to my native-English-speaker ears.
Sxajnas ke, laux vi, oni devas scii la "gxustan respondon" unue, antaux ol oni donas sian respondon! Per tia scio, oni povas elekti la respondon, kiun "la instruisto sxatas," ecx kiam aliaj respondoj estas ankaux gxustaj. Ekzemple: Se oni scias ke la "originala" frazo estas, "La muzikisto devos flugi al Pekino," oni plenigi la truon per "devos." Sed, se oni ne scias la originalan frazon, oni rajtas plenigi la truon per io, kio obeas la gramatikajn regulojn de la lingvo, cxu ne? (Bonvolu pardoni min, se mi faris erarojn cxi tie. Mi ne estas komencanto, sed mi ankoraux estas studento, kiu plibonigxis mem per Duolingo! Dankon, Duo!)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I need more context. Are you talking about a specific kind of exercise in Duolingo? If so, I have no idea which kind you are doing, so it would be helpful if you could provide the context.
I am starting to guess that maybe it was a drop down exercise. If so - yes, one could argue that both "devu" and "devos" are grammatically correct - but I would think common sense would be the guide here - and "may they have to fly" is such an unusual sentence, that we can reject that choice.
When I and others here say, "seems like devu should fit, why is it marked wrong?" we do so in the context of Duo telling us that devu means "should," and then giving us a "fill-in-the-blank" exercise where the verb is missing. The "original" sentence used devos, and if you have seen it before, you will probably remember and fill in the blank with devos. But if you come to the exercise fresh, you can legitimately think that either devos or devus works: "Musicians should fly to Beijing," or "Musicians will have to fly to Beijing." As a fill-in exercise, the chose of mood and tense is up to the student. Only if one already knows that the answer "is supposed to be" devos, will one invariably make that "correct" choice. So it comes down to which you see first. The model ("original") sentence, or the fill-in-the-blank exercise. But even when you KNOW that Duo "expects" devos, the fill-in-the-blank exercise should still accept devu, if grammatically correct. (Or, more in keeping with the corpus of questions, it should simply not offer devu as a choice.) I apologize if my poor (yet lately much improved, thanks to Duo) Esperanto did not convey all of this well enough. Mi klopodas ne krokodili! :-)
"Devu" means that there is no obligation, but there's pressure for such an obligation to exist. It's not a form of the word I would use.
But [devu] shows up in the course :/ https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/28660423
Ah, yes it does. Specifically:
- "Mi ne volas, ke ili devu flugi al Parizo."
Yes, the course is correct. In this context devu makes sense.
"There may or not be obligation for them to fly to Paris, but either way through my will there's pressure for no such obligation to exist."
It does not mean that there actually will or won't be obligation in the future.