This is clearly a popular answer. They don't really fit with how words are formed in Esperanto, however.
If this was a serious question, it deserves a serious answer.
Step 1: Answer the question "how would you say sheeple" in English to someone who doesn't know what that means?"
Step 2: Translate your answer in step 1 into Esperanto.
My last name is "Schaf". It's from German, allegedly. But I am only a partial ŝafulo, not full-on.
I wrote that so I could write this:
Mia familinomo estas "Schaf". Ĝi venas el la Germana, supose. Sed mi estas nur parte ŝafula, ne komplete ŝafula.
And I wrote that Esperanto bit because I would like to have it grammatically corrected if it's grammatically incorrect ... or to have it written correctly if its completely incorrect Esperanto.
My intent (however misguided it may be) in using "ŝafula" (sheeple-ish or sheeple-y) instead of "ŝafulo" (a sheeple) was to use it adjectivally, rather than nominally/substantively.
I'd be grateful for input on the grammatical correctness or incorrectness of the Esperanto sentence that I wrote. The factual correctness of what I wrote is still up for debate, but that's a topic I'll deal with on my own.
Esperanto is great. Imagine if Englidh were like this: dogs would have dogids, cats would hav catids, hippopotamuseseseses would be hippopotamoj an they would have hippopotamusids.
In English "young" is an adjective and we would have to say "the young of the sheep" or "the sheep's young", but there were no definite articles in this sentence. "Offspring" is a better fit for an indefinite use. You could try to report "sheep's young", but I don't know if that would be accepted.
It is certainly a normal word to use but we are not likely to say "Lambs are young of sheep." We would distinguish the word as a noun by using the article "the" . "Lambs are the young of sheep." Have you tried reporting "young"?
It's because the noun is not countable. It's not because it needs to be denoted as a noun.
It is not necessary to have "the" with a noun that is not countable. It is fine to say "I drink water." If you were to say "Lambs are young.", then "young" would be a predicate adjective describing the subject "lambs". Yet, I can find an example in which the subject is plural and the predicate nominative is singular, though not uncountable and not a word that is also used as an adjective, and again we would use "the": "People are the reason that we do this."
I was thinking that this may be a case where a plural noun = a singular noun has the singular" noun use "the", but I have not found more that prove this. Then I remembered that "reason" can also be used as a verb.
There is a difference since "the young" is a collective noun treating all the lambs as one group, while "the reason" is one single entity and "people" is the collective noun treating all the individuals as one generalization, but we still use a plural verb with it. Notice we could say "The group of people is the reason..." if we wanted to use a singular verb, but that would be a specific group rather than a generalization. Then again "the reason" is most likely simply a specific reason. We could as easily say "a reason" if there were other reasons.
I think when you say it is uncountable that means that you could not say "a young" for an uncountable noun (although in some dialects you will hear "a youngster" or "a young'un" (for a young one, but the spelling on the last is probably wrong as it is just a slang pronunciation), which means that "the young" is actually a plural group. You don't have to put "the" with an uncountable noun, but it must be used with this collective noun in this situation.
Why is the translation not "Lambs are offspringS of sheepS"?
doesn't the -j mean multiple offsprings and sheeps?
"Sheeplings are the children of sheep" is wrong in about 3 places, but I temporarily forgot the word 'lambs'
LOL. I understand why Duo would reject it, but in real life that's perfectly cromulent. :)
Yes, this question is two years old... sorry for the late reply but no.
"ŝafaj idoj" would mean sheep-like offspring.
id can be a root or a suffix. As a root with the suffix -o, you get the noun
ido or "offspring". As a suffix itself, it can turn
ŝafo (sheep) into
ŝafido (lamb). And a lamb is a baby sheep.
Similarly, you can have
kato (cat) and
katido (kitten). Or
hundo (dog) and
The way I think of it is that da indicates that the thing you are actually talking about is the noun after da, but grammatically the root is the noun before da.
"Taso de teo" vs. "taso da teo".
The former means a teacup (you are actually talking about a cup)
The latter means the amount of tea contained in a cup (you are actually talking about tea, not a cup)
What this essentially means is that you use da for quantities and de for everything else.
I wrote about de and da in this blog post.
"Descendants", not "decents".
But there's a difference between being a good sentence in English and being an appropriate translation. There's nothing wrong with "Lambs are the descendants of sheep", but the best translation here really is "Lambs are the offspring of sheep".
de = describing
da = amount
You could have just read the lecture notes in the "De/Da" unit
See my blog post
Sees word problem and goes I got this! Goes and writes answer: "Lamps are offspring of sheep." Lmao over wrong answer.
why doesn't "de sxafoj" mean "of the sheepS" since "sxafoj" is a plural? Help me i'm confused