Duolingo is the most popular way to learn languages in the world. Best of all, it's 100% free!

"Will gold melt in a volcano?"

Translation:Ĉu oro fandiĝos en vulkano?

0
2 years ago

11 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/Jepkatoj
Jepkatoj
  • 14
  • 12
  • 7
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6

I find the future tense as it is used here unnatural.

(Future ref., sentence was: "Will gold melt in a volcano?")

I would prefer (in the English, and hence the Eo translation) either "Would gold melt in a volcano?" or "Will the gold melt in the volcano?"

2
Reply1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/AdamScott794079
AdamScott794079
  • 5
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 67

That top one is wrong, would implies would x if y, and for the bottom one, that sounds like you have some gold and you want to know if it would melt if you put it in a volcano, wheras this sentence implies, is the temperature of a volcano hot enough to melt gold.

0
Reply1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Jepkatoj
Jepkatoj
  • 14
  • 12
  • 7
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6

I know what the sentence is trying to say. I was providing the instance where using "will" as the first word makes sense.

0
Reply1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/TobyBartels
TobyBartels
  • 15
  • 15
  • 14
  • 14
  • 13
  • 12
  • 10
  • 10
  • 10
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
  • 7
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2

I don't understand why you say that the top one is wrong. It's a perfectly good English sentence, and it gets across what the questioner is trying to ask. (It's not a direct translation of the Esperanto sentence, of course, but the OP's point is that they don't like that sentence.)

0
Reply7 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Ian.Maxwell

Yeah, my feeling in using "fandiĝos" is that someone could correctly answer "No, because we're not going to put any gold in it," whereas that would not be a correct answer if "fandiĝus" were used. If I wanted the emphasis to be on the heat of the volcano rather than the melting point of gold, I'd just reverse the question: "Ĉu la vulkano fandus oron?"

0
Reply9 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/DogeKnight

In case wondering gold melting point 1064 C Lava varies between 700-1200 C

So ya sometimes it can melt.

1
Reply1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/AdamScott794079
AdamScott794079
  • 5
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 67

Jxus, volkano estas mil ducent gradoj, kaj fondigo de oro estas mil sesdek kvar

1
Reply1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/AdamScott794079
AdamScott794079
  • 5
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 67

Nur mt. Dumo

1
Reply1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/BananaFelix

I guess I just dont have the N endings down yet. I thought it would be "cu oron fandigos en vulkano." Arent we asking what would happen to the gold, thus it should be the object of the sentence? T.T help...

0
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Fantomius
Fantomius
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 14
  • 14
  • 13
  • 12
  • 12
  • 7
  • 7
  • 7
  • 1128

The gold isn't technically the object of the sentence, although I can see why you would think that.

Take the simple English sentence "Gold melts." It's clear to us what it means, but a foreigner learning English might ask, "Gold melts what? Ice? Someone's heart? What is it that the gold is melting?"

What's confusing about "Gold melts" in English is that "melts" by itself could mean "melting itself" (as in "Gold melts") or it could mean "melting something else" (as in "The sun melts snow" or even simply "The sun melts").

(Grammatically, these are examples of "transitive" ("Gold melts her heart") and "intransitive" ("Gold melts").)

So it's obvious to us that "Gold melts" means "Gold turns into a liquid state" but how are foreign English-learners supposed to know this? Well, they don't, not without a lot more English instruction (and perhaps some educated guessing).

As you can probably tell, this can be frustrating for those trying to learn English.

Other languages use different approaches where the listener doesn't need to guess. Esperanto's approach is to make "fandi" transitive, so that "Oro fandas" always means "Gold melts something."

But if you want to use "fandi" as an intransitive verb, you would use "fandiĝi", such as "Oro fandiĝas" ("Gold melts (when it's hot enough)").

So "Oro fandas" and "Oro fandiĝas" both translate to "Gold melts" in English. Note that language learners would have trouble knowing which meaning was intended with English, whereas they wouldn't have that problem with Esperanto.

7
Reply62 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/jxetkubo
jxetkubo
  • 14
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6

In fact, a lot of languages of the world do have this concept. Then the case for the object is called absolutive and for the acting part ergative.

But in most European languages and Esperanto we have the nominative/accusative concept where it depends whether it is the grammatical subject of the verb independently of the fact that the verb has got a more passive or active meaning.

The correct spelling is fandiĝos. -iĝ- is the syllable to make an intransitive verb from a transitive.

Mi fandos la oron. → La oro estos fandita (de mi). → La oro fandos (far mi).

2
Reply2 years ago