Quick question regarding grammar.
In English I would say that "a little" is modifying the noun Esperanto (making 'a' a determiner and 'little' an adjective or, if you prefer, the phrase 'a little' as a determiner itself). Here it seems like 'iomete' is modifying the verb, making it an adverb instead of an adjective. (Edit: which makes sense since it ends with an -e).
Is this an important distinction in Esperanto? Is 'iometa' a word at all and if it is, is it used just like 'a little' would be in English as a determiner?
Well, really I answered half of my question. I answered the part about what part of speech 'iomete' is in the sentence. What still remains a mystery to me is why it's an adverb in the first place when the same thing in English is an adjective (or determiner for those that like to be more specific).
As in English it modifies the verb 'speak', not the noun. For it to modify Esperanto, you would be saying that you speak a 'tiny version of Esperanto' or something like that.
It also means 'somewhat'. I somewhat speak...
This is like "I read a book quickly." 'Quickly' doesn't modify 'a book'.
That's one interpretation, but I see "a little" as standing in for "a little bit of" by default when it's right in front of a noun, which makes it much more like a determiner than an adverb.
The problem isn't the Esperanto anymore; I understand it's an adverb modifying the verb. The problem I had at the time was why Esperanto chose to make it an adverb in the first place. I have since learned much and no longer really question that though. The answer was as simple as "because that's what this sentence wanted to emphasize."
Edit: And also because as was stated elsewhere in this thread, iom da is what I needed to use in order to correctly say my interpretation.
I think you have a point about the English phrase, though.
"I speak a little bit of Esperanto" and "I speak Esperanto a little bit" both sound fine, but "I a little bit speak Esperanto" sounds wrong, which would imply to me that "a little" is modifying "Esperanto" rather than "speak"
It's not that I needed to scroll up. The way Duolingo's comment system works is that the comments (and replies) with the most upvotes get moved higher in the discussion. Plus, I do get notified of replies through email and often just read them there.
At the time, I hadn't progressed to a point in the tree when "iom da" was introduced. I wasn't sure what it was so the reply was only as helpful as "this is probably what you're looking for". Now that I'm further along, this has become a non-issue and I fully understand the differences between "iomete" and "iom da".
Because you cant say just English in esperanto you have to say the english language (as Anglo is England.) But you can say angle, germane, hispane etc which is like saying "i speak englishly frenchily, germanly and esperantoly" (im not sure if its in the course like that though! Just my personal preference though!
Yup, though it would have more to do with little efficience/amount, since it would focus on your level. Iomete is formed by "iom," (meaning some quantity), "-et-" (small size suffix) and "-e," (adverb.) Iomete is "a little considerable quantity/amount" whereas "malmulte" is "small quantity."
I'm no expert in Esperanto, but by Gustavo-Faria's definitions I would think one example of using malmulte where iomete doesn't fit is if someone said, "only put a very small amount." Malmulte feels to me like a much smaller amount than iomete, which feels to me like saying, "slightly less than some."
In English there is a subtle distinction between (a) speaking Esperanto a little, where "a little" describes how much speaking; and (b) speaking a little Esperanto, where "a little" describes how much Esperanto. Here the original Esperanto sentence has meaning (a), but the English translation we are given has meaning (b).
Yes, as was stated in this discussion already, the placement of 'iomete' is flexible and both of those answers are correct. If one is not accepted, please be sure to report it, and for future reference, please be sure to read the previous comments to see if your question has already been answered in some way.
I think that the "wideness" of the sound "a" in parolas is somewhat fooling your ear into believing that he has stressed the second syllable rather than the penultimate syllable. It sounded (to me) that he spent more TIME pronouncing the "a" than he spent pronouncing the "o", but the STRESS (or OOMPH) was on the "o". But that was just how it sounded to me. Your mileage may vary.