Translation:Is that cheap?
"Is that over there cheap?" Should be acceptable because あれ is for items not near either speaker.
"Is that one over there cheap?" is an accepted answer. Obviously fine without the "one," too.
Yes it should be accepted as well. Plural isn't marked in Japanese and you usually understand it from the context. Only referring to people there are "-tachi" forms. For example "watashi" - I, me and "watashitachi" - we, us.
あれ has the plural form あれら. If someone could indicate how mandatory its use is, I'd be obliged.
I'm not a native Japanese speaker, but to me, perhaps because あれら exists and is commonly used, あれ "feels" distinctly singular.
I agree with @Monicat77 that the plural should also be accepted, because in some contexts it can sound natural enough to use あれ as a plural, but in my experience, あれら is preferred in most cases.
Does this cheap mean that it is not will made or inexpensive? They are related but not totally the same.
where do i use ano and when do i use are (same with sono and sore and kore and kono)
Kore/sore/are are demonstrative pronouns and stand alone (e.g. これはやすいです.--This is cheap).
Kono/sono/ano are demonstrative adjectives and are followed by a noun (e.g. このいすはやすいです.--This chair is cheap).
As far as I'm aware, no. あれ is a noun ("Look at that!") and あの is an adjective ("Look at that dog!").
It's not actually an adjective. あの is a contraction
The の particle connects it to a noun, so you cannot use あの by itself. It has to be followed by a noun ("that dog", "that house", "that chair") If you just want to say "that" by itself, you would use あれ or それ.
This can also mean "Is that easy?", since there's no kanji given to denote the meaning of やすい.
In my experience, やすい by itself is almost never used to mean "easy"; one would typically use 簡単 (かんたん, "simple") or やさしい. やすい generally means "easy" when it is being used as a verb suffix, e.g. 食べやすい ("easy to eat"), or やりやすい ("easy to do").
If spoken (i.e. without kanji for reference), this sentence will almost always mean "Is that cheap?"
Technically, nothing and it should be accepted since nothing in the Japanese sentence is specifically singular.
Is "Is that stuff cheap?" an acceptable translation? It corrected me with "Is that one cheap?" and Monicat77 says plural is acceptable so I reported it, but I'd like a second opinion on my specific translation to be sure.
Indeed, as @Monicat77 says, plural should be accepted since nothing the sentence is specifically singular.
That being said, I would understand if someone accepted "is that stuff cheap?" but personally, I think I would be against allowing it. Firstly, "that" can be (implicitly) plural in spoken English without needing the help of other words like "stuff". Secondly, the "that" in "that stuff" is used more like あの～ rather than あれ (although the same could be said about "that one", I feel like it is a more justifiable exception). And finally, "stuff" sounds distinctly casual to me, which doesn't sit with the use of です in this sentence.
Bear in mind that I'm not an expert, so a third or fourth opinion may also be helpful ;)
It's fun to think of what kind of inanimate pronoun you are using. English has only a few, while Japanese has so many.
やさい（野菜）yasai noun = vegetables
やすい（安い）yasui adjective = cheap, easy
Sorry if that's no help. Perhaps a mnemonic?
- やさい = "ya saying I have to eat ALL my vegetables!?"
- やすい = "yeah, sweet, this is a piece of cake"
I misspelled that as thta and it says you have used the wrong word, but when i type in 5 instead of 4 it says you have a typo!!!