1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "La homaro devas lerni Espera…

"La homaro devas lerni Esperanton."

Translation:Humanity must learn Esperanto.

May 29, 2015



One of us, one of us!


krabo-homoj... krabo-homoj...



Aro de omaro-homoj estas omaro-homaro.


Omaro estas aro de omoj


This just got political


No! I want to keep it a half-secret language (just kidding). Tamen: nur mojosuloj rajtas lerni ĝin! :P


Ĉiu, kiu volas lerni ĝin, estas mojosuloj :)


Problem with having a secret conversion in esperanto is that many speakers of European languages can half understand it without really learning the language


When my son was little, he thought he could get away with calling someone he didn't like "idioto". He was four years old, it was a learning experience. :)


You'd have to phrase it more elaborately. "Tiu ulo tute mankas cerbon" or something to that effect lol


The thing that's lacking has to be the subject:

  • Al tiu ulo mankas cerbo.


How does one say: "Humanity ought to learn Esperanto."


Probably you could use the conditional ending and otherwise use exactly the phrase here... so it would be, "La homaro devus lerni Esperanton." Feel free to correct me, reader, if I'm mistaken.


The -u ending of a verb means something like "the state to which the subject should end up." So "Humanity ought to learn Esperanto" would be:

La homaro lernu Esperanton.

Which by the Duolingo lessons can also more familiarly be translated as "Let humanity learn Esperanto!" in English, which, if you think about it, really means the same thing.


I think the original sentence here is the closest translation to that.


La fina venko estas proksima!


I'm glad the designers of this course took the time to include sentences about the vision of Dr.Zamenhof when he created esperanto.


Humanity has a way of deciding for itself what it must learn.


Isn't that kind of, well… obvious?


I believe he/she is reacting to the 'must' part of the sentence. I also think we won't get anywhere with orders and one ceases to be right the moment he/she tries to impose on others what they should or not do.


stop making fun of esperanto speakers, . It is super offensive to both of them.


HOMAR means lobster in my language xd


Resistance is futile


In Esperanto, humanity takes a definite article here, but in English it doesn't.

Is anyone able to explain why Esperanto does what it does here? It's a difference from English I don't yet understand.


Well, in many other languages it does take a definite article, so I would say it's more a peculiarity of English than a peculiarity of Esperanto.

Perhaps the question should be the other way round: why English doesn't use a definite article for mankind? The answer: English doesn't use a definite article before nouns that represent a whole class. For example «the dogs are ok» means that a specific set of dogs (such as the dogs I might have at home) are ok; on the other hand, «dogs are ok» means something different: dogs in general, as a species, are ok, not just my dogs or your dogs. In languages like Spanish both sentences would be the same, «los perros están bien», and to distinguish between both meanings some extra information must be included («mis perros están bien» vs «los perros, en general, están bien»).


mi amas la cerbulavu


Why la? I know the article would be used this way in French, but Esperanto's article rules have seemed much closer to those of English so far.


I find it helpful to remember that HOMARO on its own could be translated "a group of humans". So, "THE group of humans", while not necessarily meaning "humanity", certainly is clearer than HOMARO.

However, if the author really wanted to stress that the whole human race should learn it, maybe a different construction like TUTHOMARO could've been used [?]




Nice. Looks like "World People"


That will be offensive once we start colonizing outer space.


I don't know, they've also seemed quite close to German/Dutch, to me, and we also use the article. As for why, well, it's one of those questions that's hard to answer, other than by saying it's just the rule Zamenhof chose for it, I guess.


Some languages dont use articles at all, so why include them in a universal language. Oh well, a century too late to argue it now.


In Russian and Latin, which do not use the definite article, definiteness is indicated in part by changing the word order, moving the definite object to the beginning of the sentence for example.

Making it a specific word in Esperanto is probably not a bad thing, just like using ĉu to indicate a question rather than changing the word order like in English.


ne devas...sed se ĝi volus lerni esperanton...tre bone..se ne...kio povus fari?


ne devas

... and it really sounds somewhat questionable to me, saying that the whole humanity or some people or even someone must do something - no, they don't. they might possibly like to... but there should always be an option of not willing to do it.


dude it's a sentence in a language course


I know, I know.. for all these years here I was the one (well, one of those =) telling the same thing to others - it's only a language course. So, please, don't be surprised if my bear eats your sandwich ;) or whatever else may be happening in these sentences here :)


Could someone please explain the meaning of "Humanity must learn Esperanto?" I am not an English speaker.


Would "the human race" be an acceptable translation of "la homaro"?


Ne. Mi estas raŭmisto.


Finvenkisto redaktis la lecionon!


J E S ! J E S ! J E S !


Ok, when I saw this sentence I had to see the comments. I just say I'm a bit surprised that this discussion isn't closed.

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