Translation:The restaurant has pastas and pizzas.
in case it helps, pasta is not pasto in Esperanto because that means dough or paste.
Literally, pastaĵo roughly means "something made out of dough (or paste)", similar to how pork (porkaĵo) means "something made out of pig".
Why does the word "restoracio" exist? In an earlier lesson they introduced the affix -ej to indicate a place for something, so why not just "manĝejo" for "eatery?"
I was wondering the same thing. So I googled it--apparently "manĝejo" refers to a "dining room", which I suppose makes a bit more sense. I'm not sure why they wouldn't use something like "pagmanĝejo" ("pay-dining room") for "restaurant" though.
"Restoracio" appears in Zamenhof's Fundamento de Esperanto but is translated into English as "eating-house" — reminding me perhaps that restaurants weren't all that common in the late 19th and early 20th century, at least not in the way we think of them today. The Esperanto root comes from the Polish word, "restauracja," which maybe Zamenhof was more familiar with at the time.
Certainly "manĝejo" exists and is used a lot. Depending on the context, I would call it a dining hall or a dining room. There are lots of words that exist in Esperanto (and have existed for over 100 years) which cause new learners to stop and ask "why do we need this ballast?" My short answer to this question is that the word is already international, so a form of it belongs in Esperanto. Also, there is a certain kind of activity which happens in restaurants which doesn't happen in dining halls and chow houses.
I agree, or rather expect both to be acceptable, especially since in other lessons, similar words were introduced whose plural could acceptably be simply the word itself again. For example, in the lesson where "frukto" was introduced, both "fruit" and "fruits" were acceptable translations of "fruktoj".
They probably just missed that "pasta" does also have a countable form, when it means "kind of pasta", as in "we have wide selection of pastas".
On the other hand, one cannot say "I have 17 pastas on my plate" (when there is only one kind of pasta there, and one is referring to the number of physical items there), so it's easy to forget that there isn't only the more common uncountable form.
I disagree. "Fruktoj" is a very clear example where the countability is different in English and Esperanto. "Frukto" means "a single piece of fruit" and that it well established. On the other hand, "pastajxo" is not in that category. I would understand "tiu restoracio havas pastajxojn kaj picojn" to mean that they sell pasta dishes and whole pizzas (possibly single-serving pizzas."
It would be kind of cool if new vocabulary words were parsed. I would think that pasta would be pasto. But its pastajxo. Like Fisxagxo is a fisxo-thing, pasta is a pasto-thing, but I can't think of what pasto would mean? Noodle? But then a noodle would be a pasta too.
tiu*. ‘Tio’ is by itself already a thing: it's a noun; not a pronoun/determiner or adjective.
You also do not need the accusative case, as al already indicates moving toward the restaurant.
“Mi iras al tiu restoracio.” ;).
No, it shouldn't. The word restaurant is singular; the conjugation of the present tense third person singular of the verb to have is has, not have.
Hey, Joffysloffy! Thank you for your comment. If you are an American speaker you are absolutely correct. However, in British English especially, it is totally acceptable to use the plural form of verbs when they refer to a collective noun.
- The parliament have to agree to ‘brexit’.
- The winning team are congratulated by the queen.
The same can apply to the word ‘restaurant’, because it's not really the restaurant that does something. It's just a place. The restaurant's staff are preparing and serving the food.
While ‘The restaurant has pasta and pizza’ is 100 % correct, ‘The restaurant have pasta and pizza’ in my understanding should be accepted too. (But: ‘The restaurant have to be closed’ would be wrong indeed.)
Thanks for the explanation. I'm a Canadian English speaker and I never use constructs like "The winning team are..." Canadian English is quite the mash-up of American and British English (e.g. we say "centre" and "grey" but also "organization" and "french fries") so it's always interesting to me to hear about the differences and see where we fall.
With a 'u'. Likewise, "favourite", "neighbour", "harbour", etc.
While those are the "proper" Canadian spellings, there are Canadians who only use American spellings (and say "zee" instead of "zed").
Oh, interesting! And kind of confusing. Thanks for the explanation!
I am Dutch by the way, but I mostly encounter American English, whence my confusion ;).
La vorto pastaĵo simple signifas ion faritan el pasto. Kial tio estas sensencaĵo laŭ vi?