I encountered the same thing. I also don't like "clear" so much, because there is some distinction between "Всё ясно" and "Всё понятно".
I explain the difference with an example. Suppose I am buying a small piece of land. There is a pole on the land for an electrical distribution line. The land for two meters around the pole is privatized by the electricity company. The land for twenty meters to both sides of the line is restricted. Before closing the deal, I want to know the exact nature of the restriction.
I get the legal restriction. It is long, some restrictions depend on the type of "land" (water, swamp, agricultural, etc.). Всё ясно. (It's all clear.) The agent suggests that I might want a different piece of land because of the restrictions and the privatization of the circle four meters in diameter. Всё понятно. (It's all understandable.)
So, всё ясно is when you have been given all the details? For example, I don't know all the grammar rules regarding some word/phrase. When I find the complete chart with explanations, всё ясно?
And then всё понятно could be after I actually understand how those rules work and they are part of my knowledge?
Could it be as simple as:
ясно = "obvious"
понятно = "understandable"
Duo often marks answers wrong when they use a verbal contraction resulting in 's (apostrophe-s), because of the possible ambiguity between "is" and "has", even though most of the time the contraction makes sense.
"everything understood" not accepted, is the "is" necessary? Or do I report it?
I gather this is a sentence in Russian, so for it to be an actual sentence in English, it would need to have "is." Sometimes in speaking we leave it out (but think it). So I still vote for "It's all clear" meaning "I understand." The most obvious use of just the phrase "All clear" is to signal the end of a fire or air raid (or drill). You might say it if you are a passenger in a car and the driver has asked about the traffic on your side before making a turn or changing lanes. Is that what the sentence means here?
I supposed that the Russian sentence most literally is "Everything is understandable."
"Everything is clear" is "Всё ясно."
Does Всё and Все have the same pronunciation. Sounds the same to me when she says it.
I heard Все the first time, but Все нонятно doesn't make sense to me. So I clicked "Slow" and heard Всё very clearly.
No, всё is pronounced [fsʲɵ], and все is pronounced [fsʲe]. But всё is sometimes written as все.
I put that I can't see why it's not accepted as it's perfectly ok idiomatic English as an answer to something like "Is that clear?" "All understood"
In American English, "All" is rarely to mean "everything" as the subject of a sentence. "Everything is clear/understandable/understood" rather than "All is clear".
However, "It is all clear" is the same as "Everything is clear" - where clear means "obvious, understandable".
I understand "all is understood" is past tense, but that is how we say it in English. How come that would not be a good translation?
There's no past tense in "All is understood." It's a subject+be+complement sentence, where the complement is a past participle functioning as an adjective, and though past participles often look like the past, they function descriptively, more like adjectives OR make up a perfect tense (have+past participle).
Anyway, all that to say that there is no past tense in that sentence. It's like saying "All is clear." or "All is well." or "All is lost." See how they're more like adjectives?
So anyway, actually, I think it's a good translation because Russian has short adjectives that function the same way as this be+adjectival complement situation. It's just that всё is of the neuter gender, so the complement matches (making it look like an adverb). If we changed the subject, it would change the gender of the complement (though whether or not понятно gets used this way commonly, I don't know).
For example: Книга понятна. Учебник понятен. Видео понятно.
And sure enough, 5 minutes later, I changed my mind because Книга понятна doesn't mean "The book is understood." That would be either passive voice to mean that everyone always understands the book, or it would mean that everyone in existence has read and understood the book, yet what we mean is that "The book is understandable." The grammatical category would be the same, but we have to choose an adjective that means it can be understood, not that it IS understood necessarily.
I think in many cases this should be rather translated as "all right". For example "Все понятно, повернитесь" which would be translated as "All right, turn around". You would probably not use "everything is clear" in this case.
which does it mean? "Everything is clear to be understood", "everything is see-through", or "all the obstacles are removed from something",
"Everything is understandable" is the first definition I encountered in research on-line. Katzner's Russian-English dictionary defines понятно simply as "understandable".
It does not appear to mean "clear" in the sense of "transparent" "see-through", nor that there are no obstacles in a visual or physical sense - but, obviously, if something is understandable, there are no mental obstacles to understanding it.
"All clear" shouldn't be accepted. In American English, it usually refers to the end of an emergency situation, when the danger has passed. I has nothing to do with something being understandable.