"I go to the church on Sunday."
Translation:Mi iras al la preĝejo dimanĉe.
Is "Dimancxe mi iras al la pregxejo" wrong? Should I report it?
1 - It's not wrong.
2 - It's up to you, but I would suggest not reporting it. "Sundays I go to church" means about the same things as "I go to church on Sundays" - but it's a paraphrase, not a translation.
Thanks for the reply! I tend to think that there is no difference between both sentences. I would call it a paraphrase if any words were different or if I used a description to replace one of the words. But in this case, unless there is a nuance based on the position of the time complement "dimancxe", I really don't see a difference.. Am I wrong?
Other choices include
- reporting it and seeing if the course admins will add it.
- learning which answers the machine will take and giving those answers.
Translation is done "as literally as possible, as freely as necessary." To my thinking moving Sunday to the other end of the sentence violates that axiom.
Not surprising. The course admins seem to err on the side of not tempting people to report, since the course is measured on how many reports there are. Always remember "as literally as possible, as freely as necessary."
I don't quite agree there; I would report it, as Esperanto is just freer in word order than English generally. In this case, the alternative happens to also be possible in English, but often it is not that way, and I think often different nuances that are done in English with the stress on a different word can (also) be done in Esperanto by changing the word order. Therefore I tend to report different word orders and try to get them accepted.
I do agree with "as literally as possible, as freely as necessary" typically, but in a course like this I think there is merit in showing the learners that these different word orders are indeed possible in Esperanto with at most a difference in nuance.
I'm confused as to why we use preĝejo over preĝejon in this context, since there is a motion involved. (I say this knowing full well about the fact that there is a preposition, which usually means one doesn't use the accusative unless there is motion involved)
Is the accusative not necessary for motion as long as the verb itself already expresses motion?
The prepositions "al" and "ĝis" always imply direction, and so it does not also need to be explicitly encoded with an accusative of direction. So it's almost like you said in your final paragraph, but it's about the preposition rather than the verb.
A lot of people do like to explain it by saying that "al already shows motion towards." I prefer to say that accusative+preposition is used when the following two things are true:
- The preposition shows a location (on, in, under, between, underneath)
- There is motion toward that location.
"Al la pregxejo" doesn't show a location (in the church, under the church, over the church) but only motion towards.