I dunno, I think French sounds nicer than Esperanto. Esperanto looks prettier though.
Also in some dialects of Norwegian, or as a colloqualism in many further dialects. And also universally understood by everyone because of Manuel in Fawlty Towers.
They do this too in Russian and other Slavic languages, so I guess Esperanto adopted it from there.
And in German.
And in English too if you play by the rules but most English speakers neglect commas.
This is untrue. In English, to say, for example, "I know, that she is smart." is incorrect; it ought to be "I know that she is smart."
But your example isn't the sentence given by Duo.
It is appropriate to put ....One says...followed by a comma, in English. When placed there it is indicating the preceding is an introductory phrase.
One says wine is good
One says, wine is the spice of life.
The comma in the latter construction signals that wine is the spice of life is an aphorism. The speaker may readily acknowledge that few people have heard or read the phrase, and even fewer would use it. However, he believes that it succinctly sums up what everyone does say about wine.
In English, it would be "one says [that] wine is the spice of life," so there's no need for a comma. If it were dialogue, that would be different; "he says, 'wine is the spice of life.'" Think "the child thinks [that] clouds are good." You would never put a comma there.
Even so, this is still an incorrect use of a comma. One would never say one says, (pause) ... It isn't good to connect two completely unrelated phrases into one sentence. However, if one were to remove the comma there, the next phrase would become an object, and would be correct and sound like a normal sentence. Also, people hardly ever use one in a way like that. They generally say "people say," or "they say" instead of "one says."
I don't know where your 8 upvotes came from, but it is incorrect English to add a comma after "one says" unless it is followed by direct speech.
In French, one used in the sense we are talking about. It is the preferred form over we. Because of the French influence on English the use of that form of one was very common in the English speaking world. As a result, the more traditional the English one hears or reads the more likely you are to come across it.
Your sentence: the child thinks [that] clouds are good. says that a particular child thinks that clouds are good.
My sentence: the child thinks, clouds are good. says that the child which signifies all children thinks clouds are good. Unlike, say, adults who might hold a different opinion. It says that it is in the nature of children to think clouds are good.
Why does my sentence say that? Because I put a comma in there to indicate that the sentence is not a simple statement about a particular child.
You are correct. I don't need to put a comma in the sentence. But if I do, it changes the meaning of the sentence. And if that meaning is the one I want, then a comma is the best way to do it while keeping the sentence nice and short.
Your concluding statement: You would never put a comma there. should actually read...I would never put a comma there .......
Maybe it is related to the fact that Esperanto was mostly created by a polish guy ?
Yep. Separate clauses need a comma in Esperanto. The trick I've been using is when I see two conjugated verbs (-as, -is, -os, or -u) there must be a comma in there somewhere.
C'est un sacre québécois, une interjection disons familière qu'on peut traduire en français de France par un "putain" ou un "bordel", du même genre qu'on sort sans arrêt sans vouloir être volontairement grossier: Bordel qu'elle est belle!
Faque les sacres québécois sont hot en tabarnak. =D
Il parâit qu'un esperantiste Francais et un Quebequois se comprennent plus facilement en esperanto qu'en Français.. Là je vois ce que ça veut dire xD
I think in this case, it's emphasizing 'ke': "They say, [that] French is beautiful", or "French is beautiful, so they say."
You can find help about that here: http://bertilow.com/pmeg/skribo_elparolo/skribo/helposignoj.html But it is in Esperanto. It says, related to your question, that the comma can be used in places where you would do a natural pause, for example, before a subordinated clause with ke, ki_ words, ĉar and instead of kaj and aŭ.
In this case is not something to emphasize.
Esperanto puts a comma before the sub-clause, which we don't always do in English. You can tell a sub-clause because it's often marked by the word 'ke'.
'Oni' would never be translated by a native English speaker as 'One' in a sentence like this. 'One is used in English by some people, but generally in colloquial speech it gets replaced in a case like this with 'They', which DL happily accepts (June 2015). Zadok and LaurensEduard concluded above that 'It is said ...' was arguably the best translation, and to my native ears that is certainly the clearest statement of all, although I don't know if DL accepts it, and again in everyday speech that would be said as 'It's said ...' I know a lot of people of different native tongues are learning with DL and so I hope what I have written is helpful. To any other Native or Totally Fluent English speakers please forgive me for stating the obvious.
What you have written is not helpful or obvious.
One, as used in English, categorically should not be replaced by they since one is intended to include both the speaker/writer and the reader/listener. That is the purpose of using one in English. Using they excludes both.
Using one, in English, includes the writer/speaker/reader/listener and everyone else.
Using we limits inclusion to the writer/speaker and whoever else he wishes to include or exclude.
Using they necessarily excludes all participants in the conversation.
One is not common in spoken English because of the English speakers tendency to shift the burden of understanding onto his audience. It is more common in written English, and is used more often by those who like to apply precision in their writing. In languages such as French, where there is a greater burden of clarity on the speaker/writer, the use of one (On) is the more common construction. We (nous) is the less common. They (ils/elles) is something else entirely.
What ever Oni means in Esperanto, one and they mean different things in English. Just as English speakers routinely fail to distinguish between some and all, they sometimes conflate one, we and they. But the words have quite different meanings.
If Duo is accepting they as a translation of Oni then they should not be preferring the use of one, as that just serves to leave everyone confused to how Oni is supposed to be used in Esperanto.
But another says that Portuguese is even more.
It's sad that Esperanto and Portuguese don't get the attention they deserve. Both are such beautiful languages.
Yes, they don't get much attention, and i think it's pretty sad as well. Both have this kind of beautiful way to be. But my opinion is a little bit biased, because i'm a brazilian native speaker. :P
I believe the comma is there to indicate that it is a different clause, like in German. I could be wrong though as I've only started learning about 30 minutes ago. Esperanto speakers?
The spoken language yes. The grammar is a nightmare. Esperanto is better, since it's beautiful in both regards.
As I understand it, "oni" would be the equivalent of "people", "one", or "you" when talking about no one in particular. (Like, "People agree that...", "How does one know..." or "How do you say...")
"Ke" is like "that" in English, as in the sentence "I know THAT he's hungry", "I've heard THAT it's hot there", or "She said THAT it's nice."
Hope that helps!
"Ke" would be an Esperanto equivalent to "that" in the context of "He says that esperanto is pretty" and "oni" would be the Esperanto equivalent of the hypothetical "you" in English, like "You just know that esperanto is pretty"
Hi fabianhjr, No, you can't, If you say: "One would say= Unu dirus."
-Oni diras=They say or The are saying/ It is saying or It says.
Oni= They/People/One (Or you), It.
I hope to have you helped If there are doubts or mistakes please comment
Greetings and luck
Hi ActualGoat, Thanks for the correction, thanks again, the answer is "You can't", I forgot to put it, excuse me.
I disagree with the other replies. This is a valid translation although it would sound slightly archaic in spoken English.
“One would say” no significa “unu ĝi dirus” (eso así escrito no significa realmente nada). “Oni diras” signifca “se dice”, “dicen”. Yo “one would say” lo traduciría “mi dirus” o quizá “oni povus diri” pero de esto último no estoy seguro porque no conozco todos los matices que puede tener esa frase. En cualquier caso el would del inglés se corresponde, en general, con la terminación -us del esperanto.
Hi rev_ero, I do not know why, I wrote "ĝi", the sentence would be wrong like that, but
Unu=Oni, they are synonyms therefore I can interchange them.
"Unu dirus = One would say"
"Oni diras = It says or they say"
"Oni dirus = It'd say or They'd say"
Oni povus diris, we are changin' the modal verb of this sentence "Would" to "Could", although It can be a possibility, the translation that has been asked was with "would"
Oni = They/One/It
Unu = A/one
I hope this help, but If the info is bad, please correct me, thanks
Greetins and luck
You can't say unu instead of oni. When you say unu you are speaking about a specific person even if you don't know that person, but no about yourself or about people in general as with oni.
Think about this:
Oni iras per ĉi tiu vojo = “Pesonoj/iuj iras per…” aŭ eble “Mi iras per…”
Unu iras per ĉi tiu vojo = Nur unu (persono aŭ kio ajn) iras per…
If you can read esperanto, read this: http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/nombroj/vortetoj/unu_specialaj_uzoj.html It's about the special uses of unu. “Oni” is not in there with that meaning.
Hi rev_ero, thanks, I see that I was unaware of the nuances of these articles, thanks you have cleared my idea up.
This sentence enforces the difference between "la franca" (the French language) and "Francio" (France).
Does "oni" have the same applications as "se" in Spanish? Like an inparticular, generalized "They"?
Beauty is a subjetive issue, so speaking of beautiful languages it depens on our previous mother language or culture. I think green color is more beautiful than blue!!!! It' s only my opinion, no sense!!
Why does la franca not have an n, I assume this sentence is speaking about the french language?
That's because "la franca [lingvo]" is used as the subject in the dependent clause "ke la franca estas bela." Thus we use the nominative case instead of the accusative case, and no "n" is added at the end.
Sounds like they are saying "ke la franca" as a single word, which makes it sound more like "kilafranca".
I think translating it word for word to english would make it the same sentence but "oni" is used in the same way we would say "they say there will be a cure for cancer soon".
In english we say "they" in that context but there is no reference to who "they" is/are. There is a difference between "They look good" and "They say it'll rain tomorrow." In the second sentence "they" is really just a filler instead of saying "leading meteorologists agree" or "It is agreed upon by all local news stations."
I wrote "Someone sayss that..." and duoligo says WRONG! Oni is not Someone? Why?
One does not mean someone. The closest thing would be anyone or everyone.
In English, used as it is in this example, one means the opposite of one person.
There are two kinds of groups of people. Defined and undefined. The defined group may be defined in very broad terms but it is limited in some way.
We go to bed early when we are tired. = defined group. The term we does not include those people who don't go to bed early when they are tired. Most English speakers use we to refer to defined and undefined groups during ordinary conversation and writing. However, other languages make the difference between the two groups more distinct.
English speakers use one to refer to an undefined group when speaking with precision or formally.
One goes to bed early when they are tired. = undefined group. The speaker/writer is saying/writing that everyone does, or should, go to bed early when tired. It definitely does not mean that literally one person (someone) goes to bed early.
As mentioned earlier, most English speakers don't make the distinction between defined and undefined groups. It is so uncommon that many don't even know how to do so or why one would. One way to get around it in English is to use..you .... to refer to an undefined group.
You should go to bed early = improperly using the second person plural to refer to an undefined group. The speaker could mean the person he is talking to or it could mean everyone. The listener/reader has to insert the correct meaning. Other languages expect the speaker/writer to make it clear which kind of group he is referring to. French is definitely one that does (on/nous). According to this lesson, so does Esperanto (oni/ni). In English it is the rarely used (one/we)
I thought the sentence was trying to say 'They say, that the french are beautiful.' I got it wrong. So how would you say 'They say, that the french are beautiful.' then?
'Oni diras' is an undefined 'they', as in 'people say that....'. 'Ili diras' is specific, as in 'Those people say that...'.
Why is it 'la franca' instead of 'la franco' here? Isn't the language name a noun? I'm rather confused...
Most languages in Esperanto are actually referred to in short form of "la (language) lingvo" where the "lingvo can be dropped but the name kept in adjective form.
Why "oni" translates as "one", but "oni diras" as "they say? Where is logic?
Also, why I don't speak as "ili diras" ?
In English, we often use "They say that..." not to mean a specific group of people, but as an expression to mean "In general, it is known that...".
The fact is, many languages (if not all) have an expression or way of saying "In general, it is known that...". It just so happens that in English it is "They say that...", and in Esperanto it is "Oni diras ke...".
If you really meant "They say that..." as in "They (my parents) say that they'll be here tomorrow", then you would use "Ili diras ke ili estos ĉi tie morgaŭ." But if "they" doesn't really stand for anyone, as in "They say that to an already-cooked fish, water won't help." then oni works well here: "Oni diras ke, al fiŝo kuirita jam akvo ne helpos."
The problem is that while English speakers routinely use they the way you describe, they (English speakers) are not being accurate.
One says = Undefined group = potentially everybody and includes the speaker.
They say = Defined group = deliberately, specifically excludes the speaker. It is left up the listener to determine whether the speaker actually means what he says.
In many languages other than English, it is not routinely left up to the listener to determine whether the speaker means what he says. English itself used to make the distinction clear by using one for that purpose but that isn't the case very much now.
I don't know if you speak French, but it's the same as the French "on dit que" Oni diras, ke la franca estas bela lingvo = on dit que le français est une belle langue
Oni isn't a person, it's like a rumor. For example, you can translate that sentence like "It is said that French is a beautiful language"
" one says " is quite a posh way of saying something is it as posh in esperanto or is it just normal?
Why cant it be "one says that the french are pretty"? it reads totally different but it has la in there. So why inst there a the in the translation?
When do you use a comma in Esperanto?
Look, no matter how bad you wanna prove that this comma is correct, in NO other languages I'm aware of it is correct. Every grammarian I know would say: one shall NEVER EVER put a punctuation mark between two essential constituints of a clause. From verb to objetc you are breaking one essential connection within a clause, but there is no logical argument to sustain this! You can separate clauses within a Periodus or ACCESSORY terms like adjuncts, and you ought to separate some adjuncts like vocatives, but NEVER two essential terms of the clausr, like subject, verb and verb complrments, like the direct object in this case. If you say: oh, but what if the other term is itself another clause? IT DOESN'T MATTER! If it is a clause that works as an essential term for another clause, then it is a nominal subordinate clase, but it is still an essential part of the main clause, so no reasonable grammarian would admit a comma in between the clauses. If this anomaly is due to a rule in Esperanto, then this rule was badly conceived and ought to be changed.
"Oni diras, ke la franca estas bela. " supposedly translates as "One says that French is beautiful."
I don't understand how the "la" -- "the" -- disappeared. I am confused. To me, it seems to translate as "One says that THE French are beautiful." -- talking about people, rather than language.
Can anyone help me understand?
If I'm not wrong, in English "the French" is a collective meaning "the French people" while "French" is "the French language". In Esperanto, the people would be "la Francoj" while the language would be "la Franca (lingvo)".
Bad time to forget I'm terrible at English, why isn't this thing in Swiss German?!?!
I wrote, "One says, that the French is beautiful". Why is it not acceptable?
Because "la franca (lingvo)" means "the French language" and they would use "la franco" for "the Frenchman" and "la francoj" for "the French people"
It said on a different sentence that "oni" can mean "you" (presumably in the general sense), but here it said "you" is wrong and that it means "some". :/
C'est vrai, mais c'est dur pour la personne qui apprend :)
(i don't think we have a word that describes that)
On dit ça parce que c'est vrai, le français est la plus belle langue que je connais.
You would say "LE français". And in French we don't use a "big letter" for a language : français, esperanto, italien, etc.... :)
northernguy I'm only a native speaker of almost 60 years. I've worked and lived throughout the British Isles from London, the Midlands, the North of England, the Scottish Highlands and West Coast as well as the Republic of Ireland. I've worked with Americans and Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. In short I''ve been mixing with real people in the real world. What you wrote was all clever stuff which you no doubt got out of some grammar text, but you strayed from the question at hand. Having been a huge Michel Thomas fan I too know about the French use of 'on' for 'we' etc. but it was hardly relevant to this question was it! If people make a sincere effort to contribute to a forum like this just to be 'corrected' for the sake of it, pretty soon there will be no one here! Please don't trouble yourself to reply, at least not for my benefit. Nevertheless, I wish you every success in your own life and language studies.
gmolleda asked for an answer to a specific question, which I responded to. He thanked me for my answer. My comment was composed entirely of material relevant to his question. His question was about a grammar point. As a consequence I talked about how the grammar related to his question works in English, including a reference to French since the common usage within the two languages differs on this point. The reference to French was included to demonstrate that Esperanto usage on this point isn't oddball but is actually consistent with at least one major European language.
You did nail it though, on one point. Virtually all my knowledge of grammar comes from looking at selected parts of grammar texts. I'm not sure why that bothers you. Or why it bothers you that I responded to a question posed by a student who then thanked me for my answer.
You cautioned me not to respond to your comment or at least not for your benefit. This comment is addressed to you only so far as it provides context for other Duo students who may read it.
Duo students should understand that the comments pages are a vital part of the Duo learning process. Feel free to ask a question as long as it hasn't already been answered dozens of times on the page. Feel free to answer any question if you think what you say may help someone understand something. Even if you are unsure of how correct your response is, you can still contribute as long as you indicate you are unsure. If you are wrong someone will point it out and you will learn something from the process.
However, when you do pose a question or answer, sooner or later someone will challenge your right to do so for no reason other than their own disposition. As long as you made a good effort and it was sincere, just ignore them. And if your answer was not corrected over time and the original poster thanks you for it then when someone goes off on you, feel free to wonder......what the hell was that all about?
I'm only an Esperanto 'komencanto', but I believe you would also need in your sentence 'ke', because you've still got a subordinate clause (see lesson notes): Mi pensas, KE la franca estas malbela lingvo...