"I prefer paper to plastic."
Translation:Mi preferas paperon al plasto.
Interesting to realize that in this case, the word after "ol" still gets the accusative. It makes sense, as it's still an object of "preferas", but one might not immediately realize that and start thinking how words after prepositions don't get accusative case. (I know "ol" is not a preposition but a conjunction, but again, one might not immediatley realize that.)
Whoah, I'm reading "al", now. Was it changed or did I just completely see it wrong originally? I'm assuming the former, given the discussion still present here.
Maybe you were right, traevoli, and it was just a mistake, then. Let me check Tekstaro... hm, it does seem to have mostly "ol".
Oh right, now I remember what bertilow wrote below. I do wonder why it was changed, though.
Yes, it was "paperon ol plaston" before. I guess the team discussed it after I brought it up on the Facebook group. Since there is some controversy about that ol-form (not every teacher of E-o agrees that "ol" should be used the the verb "preferi"), I guess they decided to go with the more widely accepted form.
'Ol' is accepted now. But I seem to remember that in another sentence, the noun after 'ol' was in the nominative, even though the structure of the sentence was exactly like this. Odd. (It's a bit like German 'Ich sehe alle [accusative] außer dir [dative, because of außer].)
OK, not only is "al" listed as a correct answer when it should not be, but the "ol" form which in this same lesson has not taken the accusative case is now taking the accusative case. This lesson seriously needs to sort itself out. Does "ol" take accusative"? And why is "al" correct when it's usually to as in "toward", not "to" as in "over".
Well, I don't know if "al" really is correct or not, but I can say that just because a preference relation in English is referred to as one thing "over" the other, that doesn't mean it is necessarily that way in other languages. I could imagine such a relation being "toward" a thing, at least in principle. That said, it would be good if the lesson could avoid inconsistencies.
"Ol" is not a preposition. In principle it's a subjunction (subordinate conjunction). So in principle it always starts a subordinate clause, but that clause is almost always drastically shortened and often only one word remains, so "ol" sure can look a lot like a preposition.