1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "French people like coffee a …

"French people like coffee a lot."

Translation:Francoj multe ŝatas kafon.

May 29, 2015



Why not "tre sxatas" instead of "sxatas multe"?


In both English and Esperanto we have an assortment of intensifiers -- some mean "to a great degree" and others mean "in a great amount." For some words it makes a difference which intensifier you use. For others, there really isn't much difference.

Big difference:

  • I'm really tired.
  • I am tired a lot.

Not a big difference:

  • I really like it.
  • I like it a whole bunch.

So, the original sentence almost certainly has "multe ŝatas" and was translated as "like ... a lot" - but there's no reason you should have been marked wrong for "tre ŝatas" - except perhaps that two years ago nobody had yet reported it as an alternative.


tre means "very" (like French très). it doesn't make sense to say that someone "very likes" something.


So, tre cannot function as an intensifier? "very likes" isn't the way it is said in English, true, but the concept makes sense--I really like coffee, I intensely like coffee.


Actually, you can say "mi tre sxatas"


Out of curiosity, why is "popoloj" not accepted as "people"? Is it a misuse of the term?


"Popolo" is used to refer to a group of people, like an ethnic group or the population living in a certain country. In this case, it wouldn't work because we're talking about individual people who like coffee.

As an example, you could say something like "Antropologoj studas la popolojn de tiu kontinento" to mean "Anthropologists are studying the peoples of that continent" (note the plural -s on peoples).

You should be able to say something like "Francaj homoj multe ŝatas kafon", though. (Not sure if this is currently accepted.)


That one is accepted. But your answer is confusing... the sentence is a generalized statement. "French people" is considered an ethnic population living in a certain country. French... people. People in France.

I'm sure there's some specific semantic quibble here, but I mena, homoj is perfectly kompreneble anyhow, so it's not a big deal. I was just surprised.

Thanks for the help!


This is more a problem of the English language. There are two words "people".

One means something like the whole population of a nation. The plural is peoples.

The other is already plural and means a general bunch of human beings. It takes no plural s.

Popolo has got the meaning of the first one, not of the second one.


Alright. Weird. I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the semantics here. Damn English. It's the best language at conveying no information in the most amount of words.


Part of the confusion comes from the fact that the Esperanto version uses one word to convey the idea of "French people". Whereas in English, we have no way of saying that, other than "Frenchies", which seems rude and condescending. =)


Why not "Franconoj ŝatas kafo multe" ?


Francoj means French people, so the -on- suffix is not needed.

France would be Francio = franc + io, or Francujo = franc + ujo (container).


What is the meaning of the ending n ? I mean, what is the difference between kafo and kafon ?


When it is a direct target of a verb, you add a n. This is called accusative and occurs in a lot of languages including German.


I'm learning Russian and the accusative case is the only difficult part for me.


It's not that difficult, you can even sometimes find it in English: I/me, he/him, she/her, we/us, they/them, who/whom… (Be aware that other languages have different cases to use instead of the accusative when dealing with indirect objects or prepositions.)


the n-ending means that the word is a direct-object.

Mi amas ĝin. I love it. It is what I love. Min amas ĝi. It loves me. I is what it loves.

The word order in Esperanto doesn't affect the meaning as is English.


Nope, j'aime pas vraiment le café : 0


Why not "Francaj personoj ŝatas kafon multe"? When is persono correct and when is homo correct?


“Persona” was the mask in Greek theatre. Therefore a person is about the individual characteristics of a human being. It is used when you want to distinguish human beings. It sounds weird describing what they have in common. The plural is more often used in philosophical and legal texts than in every-day speech. There are cultural differences what it needs to become a “person.”

[deactivated user]

    is Franca Ulo acceptable?


    Kial ne estas "francanoj"?


    Ekzistas landoj, kun la landnomo kiel radiko, kiel ekzemple Usono, Brazilo, Sirio, Aŭstralio, Nederlando. La homo el tia lando havas nomon kun -ano: usonano, brazilano, siriano, aŭstraliano, nederlandano. La adjektivoj kaj kelkfoje lingvoj estas: usona, brazila, siria, aŭstralia, nederlanda.

    Ĉe aliaj landoj, la homo estas la radiko: franco, germano, ĉino, egipto, ruso, polo, finno. La landoj de tiaj homoj havas nomon kun kaj -ujo kaj -io kaj -lando. La -lando-formo ne estas kutima kun ĉiuj landoj.
    Francujo, Francio; Germanujo, Germanio; Ĉinujo, Ĉinio; Egiptujo; Egiptio; Rusujo, Rusio, Ruslando; Polujo, Polio, Pollando; Finnujo, Finnio, Finnlando. La adjektivoj kaj kelkfoje lingvoj estas: franca, germana, ĉina, egipta, rusa, pola, finna.


    Why not 'multe da kafon'


    Tiu signifus, ke ili ŝatas grandan kvanton da kafo.


    multe ŝati kafon = to like coffee a lot

    ŝati multe da kafo = to like a lot of coffee

    Note that the accusative -n is not used after prepositions (with some exceptions that involve movement).


    In the correction of my exercice the translation given was : Francoj satas multe kafon. I understand this as : "french people like much coffee" while "like a lot" is something different. In the phrase her above I see that "multe" is set before satas, and not before kafon. I would rather say it like it is written above here.

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