1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Ŝi ŝajnis esti atenta, sed …

"Ŝi ŝajnis esti atenta, sed tio ne estis ofta afero."

Translation:She seemed to be attentive, but that was not a common thing.

December 24, 2015



This sentence confuses me, someone explain please


It would help if you could say which part you are confused by.


but that was not a common thing


It means "but that is not something that happens often".

So, she does not often pay attention.

I expect the Esperanto translation is easy to understand once you understand the English since the words are pretty much 1:1, but reply if you are unsure about that as well.

"afero" is "thing" or "matter".


ohhhhhh I see! Thanks


Wouldn't "which was not a common thing" work better?


I think that would be better for , kiu ne estis ofta afero rather than , sed tio....


What troubles me is that duo wont accept the word careful in tis question but they insist n it in others


For the sub-clause, could you say "but that wasn't often the case," or does it have to be directly along the lines of "but that wasn't a common thing"


Late answer, but perhaps for others - yes, I entered "but that wasn't often the case" and it was accepted!


I think part of the problem is that it's not a typical way one would express that sediment in English, so the wording feels really awkward. Maybe it's a normal way to say that in Esperanto, but I have a feeling there might be a little bit different translation into English that would be considered more natural. I at least found the sentence to be very odd, and I don't know anyone who would say it like that.


The sentence is confusing, because it is either bad english, or a poor word choice in esperanto. Is not a common thing, or does not happen often. Perhaps komuna instead of ofta?


komuna is not "common" in the sense of "frequent", though, but in the sense of "shared by people (komuna ĉambro), related to the general public (komuna saĝo = common sense)".


I would have used kutima rather than ofta.


I am confused when to drop the "s" on estis. This sentence is a great example of esti and estis in use. I just do not see any pattern as to when to use the "s" and when to leave it off.


esti is not just estis with the -s dropped -- it's an entirely different form.

It's the infinitive -- the form you would look up in a dictionary and the form you use with other verbs.

In English esti is "be" or "to be".

estis is the past tense form of that word: "was, were".

ŝi ŝajnis esti = she seemed to be. (You can't say ŝi ŝajnis estis any more than you could say "she seemed was" or "she seemed to was".)


Mizinamo, Thank you so much for the clear explanation!


Can you say "sed tiu ne estis ofta" for the second sentence?


No. Tio refers generally to the whole previous sentence, not to any particular noun.


Thanks a lot for your reply.


Previously I translated this as "...was not common" and was marked wrong but this time the correct answer was the one that I had previously been marked wrong for!

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