that moment when you start a new lesson and duolingo gives you crazy sentences.
Ĉu estas mi la sola homon, ke pensas la frazo sonas stranga en la angla?
Am I the only person that thinks the sentence sounds strange in English?
(please forgive/correct any grammatical mistakes in Eo)
*Ĉu mi estas la sola homo, kiu pensas ke la frazo sonas stranga en la angla?
The phrase is a little strange when translated word for word into English. A translation that sounds more natural is "La koko estas besto, kaj ĝi vivas." or "The chicken is an animal, and it lives."
This is actually a good question, since I've seen evidence that Esperanto often handles predicate adjectives differently than English does.
In English, "sounds" can be an active verb or a stative verb, depending on how it's being used. So something can sound strangely, meaning it's giving off a sound in an unusual manner, or it can sound strange, meaning that "strange" is describing the thing in question. You can feel bad, in which case you're describing the state of your health or emotions, or you can feel badly, in which case you're saying that your sense of touch is impaired.
But I've seen English sentences that are clearly using a stative verb and predicate adjective be translated into Esperanto using the adverb form.
In both cases, from my experience with Esperanto (and Ido), "to feel bad" and "to feel badly" would translate as "mi sentas malbone"; however, with the former, I would add "min" to clarify. Note that Zamenhof used both the adjective and the adverb for the predicate, for example see http://vortaro.net/#sin%20senti
No, the sentence does sound strange. The problem is that it does not use parallelism, that is, they describe the rooster as being a noun and then as being an adjective (alive), rather than using two adjectives or two nouns.
vivas is a verb, not an adjective.
The chicken [is an animal] and [lives/is-alive].
The chicken is [an animal] and [alive].
But even if it were an adjective, it does not violate parallelism, because you certainly can say the second one, with the "is" covering both "an animal" and "alive".
Thank you for correcting me; but still "is an animal" is a predicate with a verb and an object, while "lives/is alive" is a predicate consisting of a verb ("is" in the latter is being used as part of a verb, not as a transitive verb). I believe that this does violate parallelism.
Take another look at my brackets.
In the first example, there are two verb phrases headed by the subject.
In the second example, there are two complements headed by the verb.
I don't think so. The meaning it conveys may be the same, but that's a different structure; we're using the verb 'live',' not the adjective 'alive'; for educational purposes, I wouldn't accept it.
yes that works. this sentence makes no sense in any language so best not worry about it too much.
Yes, because that's English - Esperanto doesn't require repetition of personal pronouns when talking about the same subject.
Nor does Esperanto prohibit it. You could use "si" to make it more clear, but since there is no other "it" to be considered in that context, "gxi" is also fine. If the gender of the "koko" is known (or assumed), one could also use "sxi" to indicate female, "hi" to indicate male, or "li" to indicate epecine/male third person. And yes, chickens are people too. LOL!
i think he is using one of the gender reforms, "it" in some languages (i think EO included) can be a bit dehumanizing, so there are occasional pushes to add either masculine suffixes and pronouns, or a neutral third person, sxli is an example of the latter
You can't use "si" as the subject of a sentence. It needs a subject to reference and that cannot be itself.
Yes, you can say that in English. It's not a correct translation of the Esperanto sentence, though.
Rarely? Been afraid to talk in this chat thingy because I see so many people get attacked for next to nothing, but seriously, I've never seen an English Bible that called it a rooster, and plenty of English speakers have grown up learning "Bible English". In fact, I went to a catholic high school, and certain nuns there made a point of insisting that words like "cock", "ass", and "❤❤❤❤❤" were animal names, and not to be used in any other way. I've also heard quite a few more farmers call it a cock than a rooster... and who would be talking about them more than farmers?
It is all rather confusing thought, how everything seems to be male without that "in" suffix, except for chickens and cows and professionals... and any other exceptions I haven't figured out yet. Inanimate objects maybe? Dolls? Puppets? How's a person supposed to guess?
Some nouns are masculine and a few are feminine, but the large majority is neuter.
Esperanto does not have grammatical gender. If a noun has the -in- affix, that means the person or animal it is referring to is female.
And without that affix, it is of unspecified gender, not male. A language does not need grammatical gender for its nouns to have masculine or feminine meaning. In Esperanto, some nouns refer to masculine beings, a few to feminine beings, but the large majority leave the gender unspecified.
A language does not need grammatical gender for its nouns to have masculine or feminine meaning.
This is true. However, that is a very different thing from saying that nouns are masculine or feminine, which refers to grammatical gender.
That made me laugh :) I think "rooster" would have been a better compromise for "male fowl". "The cock" can be... well... misleading :P
Only in American would you use "Rooster" for a cockerel. In UK English "cock" would be more likely. It is very common for a male bird to be called a cock bird.
Cock is a male chicken, A male chicken is Esperanto would have the male prefix, so virkoko
Isn't chicken specifically hen's/rooster's/cock's offspring? I am not native English speaker, but isn't "The hen is an animal and lives" also correct? (or is in english hen only female ?
"Chicken" is the name of the species and what we call the animal generically. "Chick" is the young. "Hen" is the female. "Rooster" is the male.
I looked up koko and it was rooster or cock
kokido is defined as chicken
Sorry, as I progress in lessons I just want to be exact. This confuses me.
The lesson at the beginning says that "-in" is for female animals, "vir-" for male animals, and "-id" for offspring/young/child animals.
So, in English, "kokido" is "chick", "virkoko" is "rooster" or "cock", and "kokino" would be "hen"
Not just animals:
viro = man
virino = woman
knabo = boy
knabino = girl
avo = grandfather
avino = grandmother
onklo = uncle
onklino = aunt
Esperanto is saying that the chicken is not an inanimate object for our delight to eat, it as feelings.
It doesn't have to be. These lessons are all about grammar and vocabulary. As long as it's grammatical, it doesn't have to make sense.
Virkoko is the word generally used. The -iĉo suffix for male things, while it has a small following, is not standard Esperanto.
All creatures are beasts and all animals are creatures.
In English (at least UK English) the words “beast’, “animal” and “creature” are equivalent.
I have just checked my copy of Webster’s dictionary, and “beast” includes both vertebrate and invertebrate creatures. So, it seems to apply in US English too.
I just reported the “beast” translation as missing again, but since most people that I know seem to use “beast” to mean tetrapod then I won’t be surprised if it isn’t corrected.
Can "vivas" be used to mean "live" as in "live in the house?" Mi vivas en la domon?
No, that would be
loĝi, cognate with "lodge".
Vivi is literally "to live, to be alive".
Loĝi is "to lodge, to reside, to dwell".
It could. In English: beast=animal=creature. This is also true in American English according to Webster.
You can't have two conjugated verbs in a row like that. Besides,
is alive, so
fritita kokaĵo ne vivas is all you need to say.
The chicken is ALIVE!!! They will be telling us its name is Flash Gordon and wants to save several planets next!
It's related to Biest, beast, beest, bist, bèsta, bestie, bête, besta, bestia. bæst, best, etc. of various Indogermanic languages, all referring to an animal, though in some cases with a negative association.
Yes. The various European languages are all related to each other more or less distantly (except Basque, which is an orphan).
I wanted to put "The chicken is an animal and lives," but that made absolutely no sense.
La koko estas besto kaj ĝi vivas. The verbs are not of the same kind, thus they can't combine without each having a subject.
It would be helpful, just sometimes, if whoever made this course actually knew English, and not just Esperanto.
That's a valid interpretation, just not one the course contributors thought to put in the database. Flag it and report "My answer should be accepted" next time this comes around.