Translation:Is it written on my forehead that I am an idiot?
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Is there some rule of Esperanto grammar that explains what's happening in this sentence? (Zamenhof's sixteen rules certainly don't cover this.) Because this is not how natural languages treat this construction or understand it syntactically. Imagine this conversation:
A: Is it obvious? B: Is what obvious? A: That I'm an idiot.
Now that's English, but obviously the whole conversation is related naturally to the sentence "It's obvious that I'm an idiot." Notice that you cannot say, in English, "It's obviously that I'm an idiot," and B definitely cannot say "Is what obviously?" I'm pretty sure in Esperanto this conversation would also be carried out with adjectives (not adverbs). Now back to our scenario. Would there be anything wrong grammatically with the following?
A: Cxu estas skribita sur mia frunto? B: Kio estas skribita? A: Ke mi estas stultulo.
Should B really have said "Kio estas skribitE"? On what grounds? The fact is that if you think it's modifying "ke mi estas stultulo" you want the adjective form "skribita," not the adverb form.
Now, there is a different way of reading this sentence which could, I suppose make the adverb make sense. As if the question were, "Is it there on my forehead, IN A WRITTEN WAY (as opposed to . . .?) that I'm an idiot?" But that seems bizarrely unnatural.
Is there some rule of Esperanto grammar that explains what's happening in this sentence?
Yes. This rule is expressed in various ways. One simple way to put it is like this:
- when there's no noun, use an adverb.
"Skribite" modifies "ke mi estas stultulo." "Ke mi estas stultulo" is not a noun, therefore, to modify that phrase, you use an adverb.
(Zamenhof's sixteen rules certainly don't cover this.)
There are a LOT more than 16 rules in Esperanto. PAG and PMEG as as thick as a mid-size city phone book back in the day.
Because this is not how natural languages treat this construction or understand it syntactically.
In fact, the rule I mention above is said to have come into Esperanto through Slavic influence, so it's totally natural. It's just different from English.
I guess, my point is that while there may be a reading of the sentence in which "skribite" works, "skribita" is more natural and should, at the very least, be accepted as a translation of the English.
No, it should not. A phrase starting with "ke" is not a noun, and therefore would not be described with an adjective in Esperanto.