"Unu litro ne estas multe."

Translation:One liter is not a lot.

May 28, 2015



I translated it as "a liter is not much" but I guess that's too different!

May 28, 2015


It sounds right to me

You should report that kind of things (even if you are not %100 sure, it's better to report them) ;)


I agree, and I've reported it.


And I just got a note saying they now accept this answer! :)


I do think having it translated as "One liter is not too much" is more correct in this situation, because firstly we've recently learned the word "unu" (so it's more practice for that), and secondly because it's a more literal translation for the sentence. Although both sentence variations do mean the same thing fundamentally.


In English the word "a/an" can refer to the word "one". It is slang.


Perhaps they've reversed it, because I just entered "A liter is not very much." and it was not accepted. Below is says " Correct solutions: • 1 liter is not very much."


you should leave out "very"


Well, that all depends on what it's a liter of, doesn't it?


One liter of jet fuel is a drop in the bucket, but one liter of almost any kind of venom is a crapton!

And you're in luck if it's scorpion venom. One liter of that stuff sells for roughly 10 million US dollars. It's the most expensive liquid on Earth.


It's the most expensive liquid on Earth.

Right after HP printer ink...


Why is it "multe"? Instead of "ne estas multo" (it's not a lot--"a lot" being a noun) or "ne estas multa"? or multaj? like...ne estas multaj litroj? The adverbial form is the only one I can't seem to come to a sensible justification for in my head.


While "a lot" is technically a noun, note that it is often used as an adverb as well in English.

For example:

  • It's a lot harder than it looks.
    (Here "a lot" clearly modifies the adjective "harder")
  • I go swimming a lot.
    (Here "a lot" is used to mean "often" or "frequently". You don't swim a multitude of things.)

But yeah. In this particular case it does not make a lot of sense from an English point of view.


It does sense to me, at least comparing with Spanish. We'd say 'Un litro no es mucho', "mucho" being an adverb, because it would remain 'Dos litros no es mucho', was it in plural.


Hmmm, I'm still not sure I see it, because to me in "dos litros no es mucho", "mucho" in that case is still a noun, like another way to say the same thing would be "dos litros no es una cantidad muy grande"...it stays the same as a singular noun. Unless my Spanish is wrong haha, which is possible...


Mucho is an adverb. You can't say "el mucho" or "los muchos", for example.


Ahhh this explanation makes sense. Have a lingot :)


Seconding this. Polish: "Litr to niewiele". Niewiele is an adverb, but acts like a noun in here.


They probably meant it like "Uno litro da akvo ne estas multe." See PMEG

And not as if the concept of a litre is a lot.


I guess Duo's defending itself for ordering so much soup :)


Why isn't it's "multa"?


"unu" is also the Romanian word for "one"! :D


If I wrote: "unu litro estas ne multe" would that work?


Technically that's totally possible. But in practice almost everyone usually puts the "ne" in front of the "estas" in these cases.

Also note "ne" modifies the word following is, so then you're saying "1 L = not a lot" instead of "1 L ≠ a lot".
In this case the difference is not that apparent, mainly because it's not easy to express the difference in English. But you can in this case:

Li ne estas fumanto. = He is not a smoker

Li estas ne fumanto. = He is a non-smoker.
(NOTE: "ne fumanto" is more commonly spelled "nefumanto")


Thanks for your help.


I don't know how much a liter is, but I can tell you that one gallon is a lot.


A liter is roughly a quarter gallon.


Could be one liter is not enough ?


That would be "Unu litro ne estas sufiĉe."

("sufiĉe" is related to the English word "sufficient")


Sounds like he is saying "nestas".


At one point I was told "multo" is also acceptable -- which is which?


I got "she drinks a glass of wine" before this and now mine worried she may have a problem XD


Does Esperanto ever merge words using apostrophes. Like

do not => don't

ne estas => n'estas ?


There are cases of that happening, yes, particularly with "la". The water : la akvo : l'akvo. It also happens with "de", "ne".


In standard Esperanto, it never happens with de or ne.


I can't even hear the "ne"


"One liter is not many."-- what I put. Not acceptable?


No. Unfortunately, I'm not able to explain why. :/ I believe it has to do with countable vs uncountable nouns, as per the explanation given here: http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-much-and-many/


Yes; many can only be used when something is countable. A litre is used to measure volumes of liquids and you couldn't, for instance, have many water.


can we say "one liter isn't enough"?


"Lot" was not an option for me


I said a liter is not enough


That is an incorrect translation. "Unu litro ne estas multe" Is a statement saying "One liter is not a lot". "A liter is not enough" is a completely different phrase. Enough for what?


Duo, you just said one liter of bread is a lot!


Why is it "Unu"?


Because it's one liter.


One liter of booz !! Sounds good to me


I think it should be "unu litro ne estas multA" In a specific context it may refer to a verb so we can say multe, but in this context it refers to a noun, which makes it an adjective.

[deactivated user]

    No. If it had been something like, for example "One litre is not a large quantity", then yes it would be "granda kvanto". But here, it really means "One litre is not much (of whatever liquid we are talking about)", so it is "multe".

    Learn Esperanto in just 5 minutes a day. For free.