"The large coffee is bad."
Translation:La granda kafo estas malbona.
I find this mildly annoying that they mark us wrong for a concept that they have not taught us yet. Had the concept of an adjective changing to a verb been presented to us then perhaps we could have made the right choice.
"La granda kafo estas malbonas" makes more sense in this instance, why drop the be verb?
It's not being explained here, but in sentences with a copula, you can instead verb the adjective, dropping the copula.
Pligrandigi = to enlarge something
Pligrandiĝi = to become larger
Grandi = to be big
I think you mean "La granda kafo estas malbona". There seems to be no point in saying "is" twice in the sentence - once by itself "estas" & once by using "malbonas".
It can make more sense in some languages, but it seems that in esperanto it's an option among others.
Vi devintus (aldone) akcepti "larĝa". "Granda" estus laŭ mi traduko por "big", eble ankaŭ por "huge". Almenaŭ por ne-denaskaj parolantoj de la angla.
"larĝa" means "broad" and is not used the same as "granda" which means "big, "great" or "large". (Large in French does not mean the same as large in English either.) http://esperanto-panorama.net/vortaro/eoen.htm
This dictionary lists "huge" as "grandeja" (EDIT: No it doesn't, my typo - I should have trusted my instinct that it was wrong. and looked it up again. See comments below.), but "-ej-" is specifically relating to places I thought. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16967/16967-h/16967-h.htm
Thanks. Anyway, i am recovering/widening my english knowledge here :-) . huge = grandega, -eg- making bigger, -ejo = place where something happens, e.g. kafejo = place where you can drink coffee.
See I knew I had it wrong! "Grandega!" That makes more sense to mean "huge" or "enormous".
"mal" does not mean bad in Esperanto as it does in some other languages. It means the "opposite of", so it must be "estas malbono" or "malbonas".
It says there are 2 correct answers.. I have chosen one of them in this question and it still counts it as a mistake... Care to explain why?
Kafego estus tre kielkafa kafo, ne granda kafejo.
"Kafego" would be very coffee-like coffee, not a large café. And "kafejego" would be a very café-like café, not a large café.
-eg- intensifies the word it's attached to, it is only to do with size in size words "grandega" "larĝega" etc. Think of it like the word very.
Grandego = very big (huge)
Bonega = very good (great, excellent)
"Estas" links two ideas together, just as it does in English, as a present tense verb (a "copula"). "La granda kafo estas malbona" is a statement about the state of the large coffee. There's no implied action here, just a description. That's clear enough, I think.
In "La granda kafo malbonas", what's really happening here is that you are not adding an -s but adding an "-as", that is, changing an adjective (malbona) into a present tense verb (malbonas). The semantic sense is the same, but the flavor of the sentence, if you will, changes greatly. The large coffee is now actively being bad rather than just in a state of being bad.
An attribute of Esperanto is that any word root (including suffixes and prefixes!) can, conceivably, become a verb as well, if doing so is sensible within a sentence. This tends to make Esperanto sentences more active than we might have them in English where we want to separate subject and action. To say in Esperanto, "La ĉielo bluas" has the same idea as the English sentence "The sky is blue" but with added gusto: the sky is doing something here -- bluing, for the lack of a better concept in English. One could say, "La ĉielo estas blua" and why not? But "La ĉielo bluas" gives agency to the sky, something we don't have in English.
In this case, the coffee is more actively bad than it can be in English. So maybe it's not Starbucks?
I liked your explanation very much! It is very useful to me, thanks a lot! Have a lingot for it! :)