Wait, "La Angla" is short for "La Angla Lingvo," so didn't I just say "The English language is a language"?
Well you can say it, that doesn't mean it makes any sense to say it. Mostly I wanted to make sure I understood the redundancy of what was being said in Esperanto.
If you say ANGLA without LA, it means "a english (thing)" 'cause ANGLA is an adjective. In Eo you say LA ANGLA to mean something like "the English thing", which by context sould be understood like "English language"
LA ANGLA could mean any specificEnglish thing according to context. If I am talking about teas I could say: LA ANGLA ESTAS BONGUSTA.
I think what they are pointing out is that the word "language" could be implied in English as well. After all, "-ish" is an adjectival ending. Similarly, you could say "Siamese are cats" or "Siamese cats are cats," if someone had been talking about a Siamese as a kind of dog.
In English we do not use the definite article there. We could say "English is a language." or "The English language is a language.". according to more than just me. http://grammar.about.com/od/e/g/englishlanguageterm.htm
Consider it part of a possible discussion "Is English a regular language or a creole?" — "(Tamen) la angla estas lingvo" may be part of such conversation :)
Why is there "la" before the name of a language? The English, the Spanish...I don't really get it.
It's in the notes and tips for this skill - it's short for la angla lingvo. Angla on its own would be an adjective.
I suppose it would be too ambiguous to drop 'la' as well as 'lingvo'.
If the 'la' is dropped, then it becomes an indeterminate phrase: 'an English thing'. We're talking about English, though, which is definite, so we call it 'the English thing', which is implied to be the language.
For one thing, "la angla" is short for "la angla lingvo."
Also, it might have something to do with the fact that Esperanto likes to pull vocabulary from Romance languages. I'm not sure if German does this, but in French you'll sometimes see the definite article appear when you're talking about general nouns. For example, I've seen "English is an easy language" translated as both "L'anglais est une langue facile" and "Anglais est une langue facile."
"Anglas est une langue facile" is not correct French, you need the article. You do not need it when you want to say "Je parle anglais" but I think it’s the only exception.
Dankon! I knew there was an instance where the French indefinite article could be omitted, but I wasn't sure where it was.
It happens a lot in Spanish, too, also with general nouns (often for ideas and concepts).
The question is rather why is there no "the" before the name of a language in English? The Esperanto way makes more sense to me.
Using "la" and an adjective without a noun is like saying, in this case, "the English one". We know we're talking about a language, so... Bro, if you don't get it, it's 'cause English. You've got to open your mind to a whole new way of expression. Easier said than done, I know. Call me a jerk, but I was raised bilingual, so yes, I admit I have some advantage... Just remember that not everything is a calque on English. ;)
We do the same in Spanish: "El inglés es una lengua". I wonder if it's the same for other latin languages....
English is a language lacking the consistency and regularity of Esperanto. English is a language of too many exceptions.
From reading the comments I understand the reason for the "La" in front.
What if you change angla to a noun ==> anglo and say "Anglo estas lingvo." Or does this change to English as in the group of people?
So if I'm not mistaken, proper nouns are never capitalised in Esperanto. I should only capitalise a word if it starts a sentence.
Well kind of yeah. :D But that would make sence if someone eg. understood Langla to be a name or smth. :-)
"to be" is a stative verb. It takes a subject complement, but not a direct object. The -n suffix is for direct objects, which only happen with transitive active verbs.
Why ???? There is "la" before angla so it's the English language and not English (alone)
Different languages have different rules. English was not one of the languages Zamenhof spoke. The rules of Esperanto say that the full phrase is "la L lingvo" but can be shortened to "la L". The rules of English say that we only say "L".
(Where L stands for whatever language we're talking about.)
Sorry but I don't understand what you mean! My wrong answer was in English not in Esperanto. I wrote "The English is a language" instead of the right answer "English is a language" and my question was about the article "the". Sorry if my first question wasn't clear.
Yes, I answered that question. In English, we do not say "the English" (or "the French" or "the German") when speaking about the language. We simply say "English" (or "French" or "German").
Why is it "la angla" and not "l'angla"? In French, if 2 vowels are together you replace with an apostrophe. Does anyone know why this does not happen in Esperanto?
If "Angla" would be an adjective by itself if you left out "la", then why can't you just add an O to the end, making it Anglo. Wouldn't it be more redundant to say: "La angla estas lingvo" (The english language is a language) rather than: "Anglo estas lingvo" (English is a language)? Or would I be saying "A English is a language"?
"La angla" is idiomatically short for "la angla lingvo". "Angla" is an adjective. "Angla manĝaĵo" is "English food", "angla muziko" is "English music", etc.
"Anglo" is a noun and means specifically "Englishman" (or more broadly, a person from England, just as "franco" means "Frenchman" (or more broadly, a person from France). So saying "Anglo estas lingvo" would mean "An Englishperson is a language".
Why doesn't 'lingvo' become 'lingvon' if it comes after a verb? I thought that'd be an indicator for it being accusative
The accusative is for the direct object of a transitive verb. For example:
La knabino ĵetis la pilkon.
ĵetis is a transitive verb because it performs an action on a thing.
la pilkon is the thing that received the action of the verb.
If you can ask yourself "What got thrown?" -- indeed, if you can re-work it into the passive voice -- then you're dealing with a transitive verb and its direct object.
esti is not a transitive verb. It's not an intransitive verb, either. Transitivity only applies to active verbs, and
esti is part of a class of verbs called stative verbs. They describe the state of something. Anything that comes after a stative verb is called a subject complement. It reflects back on the subject of the sentence.
John looks tired. "tired" describes how John looks (appears).
The coffee smells wonderful. "wonderful" describes how the coffee smells (the aroma it gives off).
La angla estas lingvo. "lingvo" specifies "la angla".
In most languages, this use of the verb "to be" is called a copula. The word that comes after it is not really an object, like a word coming after "to send" or "to hit" would be. Rather, it's usually in the subject form, because the "to be" is really more like an equal sign, so "la angla = lingvo," in a way, and both words are consequently in the same case (grammatical form of the noun).
In English, we only say "the English" when referring to English people. "The English are interested in the royal family".
We'll say "the English language", which is what "la angla" is short for (notice how it ends in -a), but just "English" for short.
I'm thinking this is some sort of the "the + adjective" structure in English which can also used for plural nouns like "the English (people)". Can La angla sometimes mean that depending on the context?