102 Comments
There's nothing ungrammatical about it. It's technically correct although people wouldn't normally use that sentence order. It's fine though. :)
Doctor Zamenhof was inspired by his (native?) Polish czy when creating this word. It is also a question particle.
38
except russian and ukrainian are both in a different category of slavic languages
If I recall correctly Polish (and Czech) descend from the East Slavic family while Russian and Ukrainian are West Slavic descendants
This word is EXTREMELY unclear as a translation task alone. It could translate to almost any word depending on what you're then going to ask : / If you want to make us translate "really?" then why not put "ĉu vere?"
I actually wrote "cxu vere" the first time and it came back as wrong. I agree that the sentence should be changed.
This task is unclear. I'm a low-intermediate student who's been learning Esperanto for over a year and I couldn't get this right. It's just not clear what the answer is supposed to be; I think there must be a better way to present this word.
Under tips and notes it had phrases with ĉu and one was "ĉu?" meaning "Really".
"ĉu" alone is not the short form of "ĉu vere?" (really), but the unpolite form of "Pardonu, kion vi diris?" (Pardon, what did you say?)
"ĉu" is also a conjunction meaning "whether"
Well, this word is really a little bit hard to translate. The same would happen if one tries to translate the auxiliary verb "do" in English. In my opinion we could think that, isolated, as a question, it simply denotes surprise.
I'm not fluent in esperanto (I just started learning 60 minutes ago) but I think that would be "Ĉu ne?"
I thought "Ĉu ne?" meant "Isn't it?" and "Ĉu?" meant "Really?", but I see your way of thinking. In a question it seems to mean "Is this true?" at the beginning of a statement that you can answer yes or no to. I think it is kind of similar to the French question beginning "Est-ce que ..." which cannot be literally translated to English ("Is it that..."), but gives the same feeling. ("He plays." becomes "Does he play?" We could say "Is it true that he plays?" or "Does he really play?") See the tips and notes for this lesson and scroll all the way down: https://www.duolingo.com/skill/eo/Basics-2
That's a lot of languages Duolingo offers to learn. I spend an enormous amount of time, more on some than on others. Of course, it makes perfect sense to learn Esperanto, as it will be impossible to learn every language there is. Sign Language and Braille are the other two essential languages, as I cannot expect a deaf person to listen to me speak or blind person to write to me in English.
<- is deaf
Just a friendly reminder to everyone out there that there are many different sign languages, just as spoken! ^^ (Because I find that people are surprisingly ignorant of that...)
I just started learning Esperanto but seems to me the literal translation for Cu ne would be "Is it no?".
Well,
"Ne" means "not" as well as "no" http://esperanto-panorama.net/vortaro/eoen.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16967/16967-h/16967-h.htm#letterC
"Ĉu ne" means "Is it not?" or "Isn't it?" which is simply a contracted form of the same thing.
This expression doesn't really translate word for word. We replace their expression with one of ours. We could say "He plays, is it not so?" or "He plays, doesn't he?" or "He plays, or not?"
No; right before you click "begin," one of the bullet points translates that phrase as "Ĉu ne?" A better translation would be closer to "Doesn't it?"
I think this is similar to "acha(s) " in portuguese or "you think..." in english. In portuguese, using this word is kinda optional but it lets the other person know that a question id coming and a feedback is expected. In portuguese, not using a word like this still makes sense but in esperanto things dont seem to "flow" right without it.
Having said, I think thus exercice is not not only wrong but it is also not very friendly for begginers. The next exercice clarifies more the use for this word.
In my understanding, "Ĉu" is used at the start of yes/no questions, such as "Ĉu vi volas danci?". I've never seen it being used as to mean "really".
Does everything I write have to be in the standard global acrolect when it is a conversational word? I translated it as "eh?"
How is it used differently apart from being prepositional rather than postpositional?
"Eh?" in the US is more like "What did you say?", "Excuse me, could you repeat that?" or "Huh?", "I didn't get that. What?"
"Is it so?" or "Really?" is more like "I heard you, but I am not sure that I believe you.", "You have got to be pulling my leg.", "Are you sure you're not just trying to pull one over on me?", "Are you just kidding?" although it could be "I don't think so. Are you sure?"
Unless you are Canadian, in which case you might just use it for this also. Even then, it is different as it is used for both "Isn't it?" and "Is it so?" It is also used here and there just to see if people are paying attention, as in "Did you get that?", "Did you hear me?", "Are you even still listening to what I am telling you?" You yourself called it a conversational word making me immediately think of this last Canadian use, which is not the same as "Really?" or "Is it so?" : "I was going to the store, eh, when a big truck crashed into the gas station, eh and you should have seen......" Here it is used more like "This is exactly what happened. There is no doubt, but are you listening? Wait until you hear what happened next?"
"Isn't it?" is more like "I thought it was so. Am I wrong?" or "This is the way it is, but perhaps that is not true?"
"It's nice here, eh?" but is it used this way by itself? We would certainly assume the first meaning when it is by itself.
The Jamaican pronunciation of 'true' is 'chu' because tr slurs into ch. But even they would say 'fi chu' what they write as 'for true' or 'a chu' meaning 'is it true'. Its intresting how. Esperanto has so many similarities with creoles, except for being easy to pronounce, and compensating grammatical simplification by being rich in modalities.
- 94
This word was actually inspired by Polish "Co nie?" (Ĉu ne?), which means something like "Isn't it?".
Ĉu might be the only word I know which is shorter than it's English equivalent:)
Some people told me that only need 3 months that you can know how to speak Esperanto, Is it true? And so, I'm so excited to learn Esperanto but I only can use Duolingo because I like the way how I can learn languages. Saluton! :D
Ĉu estas pli ĝuste tradukita kiel "whether" kion estas "really". Ekzemple ĉu la vetero estas malbona? La alternativo "really" ne funkcias preskaŭ tiel. Ekzemple "vere la vetero estas malbona?"
How am I to know what this new word is? Am I missing somewhere on the website?
I answered, "right," and was marked as incorrect, even though "right?" is a choice.
I think that is because it is a stand alone word here. "He plays, right?" could work, but "Right?" is certainly not used much whereas "Really?" works better alone. Like a dictionary, we need to pick the best definition for the situation or sentence. Not all definitions apply to all sentences.
I agree. That's why "right" is an acceptable choice for this word, according to the Duolingo definition (when you mouse over the word). Point is, I wrote, "right," and was buzzed wrong.
So, you use "Right?" all by itself? I would definitely not, but I would use it at the end of a question. You could try reporting it and see whether Duolingo will add it as an alternative, or not. I personally think it can be used for this word when not used alone, which is why it is listed.
Really? Because "whether" or "if", which is how I learned this word really doesn't fit well in a one word sentence.
They do state this at the very end of the "tips and notes" in the beginning of this chapter; otherwise I probably would have gotten it wrong as well
"if" is listed as "se"
"whether" does list as "Ĉu"
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16967/16967-h/16967-h.htm (English to Esperanto)
However in this dictionary, which goes from Esperanto to English, more meanings are listed: http://esperanto-panorama.net/vortaro/eoen.htm
"ĉu" is listed as "either", "if", "is it", "whether"
I think an alternate for the stand alone which Duolingo has as "Really?" could be "Is it so?"
I suppose that in a question, ĉu is the equivalent of the french est-ce que, except in that particular sentence there.
Would this be the equivalent of 'do/does/is' in English or 'est-ce que (c'est)' en français?
Would an interpretation of
Esperanto "Ĉu?"
as
English "What?"
(as in the "Can't hear you, say it again! [all politeness polished off]"-variant, and somewhat similar to "Huh?")
be farfetched?
Oni povas respondi al ĉua demando nur per aŭ jesa aŭ nesa respondo. Eble la demand-vorto pli taŭga en tia situacio estus: kio? kun demandema intonacio.
I actually wrote"isn't it" and it was not correct but I was sure about being correct.why Cu has dual meaning as isn't it or do and really?
"Ĉu" is word which makes thing interrogative. 'It is a book' - 'Gxis estas libro', 'Is it a book?'-"Ĉu ĝi estas libro?", By alone 'Ĉu' is itself a question 'weather it's real or not'? 'really' is not exact translation but equivalent or approximate. Real translation for 'really' in Esperanto is 'Vere'.
'Ĉu' may seem odd but such words are exists in other languages. For example, in Hindi word 'kyaa' works exactly like 'Ĉu' .
'Yes kitab hai' - 'Ĝis estas libro', 'Kyaa yeh kitab hai?'-"Ĉu ĝi estas libro?"
Ĉu? - Kyaa? (Kyaa, sach me?) = really?
I always thought that Cu meant something more along the lines of seriously? And not really. Because I was under the impression that Cu could only be used in the context of being surprised, but I'm obviously wrong. Is there another really or something?
Ĉu is a question participle. Literally it means "whether", so in this context it means "really", as you could take it as a "please reaffirm whatever you just said" or "could you explain more about that?" if used alone. It's definitely a nuanced word.
"Vere" (literally "truly" from vero, "truth") is used often to mean "really". There's also "reale" (literally "really" from realo, "reality"). These are often interchanged, with "vere" being more common due to its shorter pronunciation, but I feel like there are some situations where you should use one over the other.
A) Mi havas dek katojn. - I have ten cats.
B) Ĉu?! - Really?!, Are you kidding?!
A) Mi ricevis malbonan noton. - I got(received) a bad grade.
B) Vere? - Really?, Truly?, Are you speaking the truth?
A) Estas monstro sub mia lito. - There's a monster under my bed.
B) Reale? - Really?, In reality?
Really? is the correct answer, cause if you see the prounouce (plus sorry for my grammar :c) that with cap letter at beginning (example: Then), then its the right answer. Its easily to cheating (for me thought) except if there is two with cap letter. Hope its help for beginners.
I've always interpreted Cxu as a word representing a binary query with implied options. So the way I've been think of this is "Is that so?" It implied that the query implied to the previous statement. The thing that confuses me though is when the course says "Ĉu la bebo estas knabo aŭ knabino?" Following what I thought was the definition, the answer to this question should simply always be "Jes." since the baby IS a boy or a girl. That would be an abridged for of "Is it a boy or a girl?" then "Yes, it is a boy or a girl."
i have completed basics 1 and 2 and then started the skill strengthening exercise. Not sure how I am meant to know that cxu in this context means really? when i have only been taught it as meaning is
Duolingo is making me post something to progress, apparently. Ignore this.
