Translation:He does not eat pork, because he is vegetarian.
Yes because "vegetarano" is a noun, right? But the suggested answer was "...he is vegetarian."
In English, there really is no practical difference between "he is vegetarian (adj)" and "he is a vegetarian (n)". So it can be translated either way.
Yeah, but I think that their point was that the suggested answer was "he is vegetarian(adj)", despite the original Esperanto sentence using the noun.
Mi ne mangxas porkajxo cxar gxi estas malpermesita al mi. would that be correct?
Could "ĉar" be translated as "for"?
e.g. "He does not eat pork FOR he is a vegetarian."
The meaning is correct, but using "for" like that is extremely formal/literary. Still, it should be accepted.
Insofar as you use "for" as a substitute of "because" and the sentence retains the same meaning in English, it has to be considered a correct translation of "ĉar".
It was difficult to find the distinction, but it looks like "Karno" is meat as in flesh, whereas "viando" is edible meat.
Isn't there a more Esperanto word for vegetarian? Like neviandulo or something similar?
Mi vegetaranas, vi vegetaranas, li vegetaranas, ŝi vegetaranas kaj ni vegetaranas!
It really seems ambiguous to have the same phrase mean "is not" and "does not".
Would it be better to clarify such ambiguity with something like "Li neniam manĝas porkaĵon," or "Li ne manĝos porkaĵon"?
I don't find it ambiguos at all. I think it is pretty objective and understandable. The thing is that the english language has the auxiliary do. As an auxiliary verb do is used with a main verb when forming interrogative or negative sentences, or for adding emphasis. We don't use the auxiliary do when it comes to the verb "to be". That is why we translate "li ne estas" to "He is not" and not the other way around, while all the other verbs will be tranlated to "does not".
sxi ne trinkas - she does not drink
ili ne dormas - they do not sleep
So then how do you differentiate between "She does not drink (right now)," and "She does not drink (ever)"?
Both seem to be "sxi ne trinkas" with no difference but the context, I would like a more experienced esperantist to help us here tho. :(
As "Oscargm98" said, both are "ŝi ne trinkas".
But you can make it more explicit:
- Ŝi ne trinkas nun, aŭ ŝi ne estas trinkanta.
- Ŝi neniam trinkas.
Technically the pieces of the word form the concept of "pig meat" which is called "pork". "Pork meat" itself is a little redundant, however I won't guarantee it's unacceptable. You may consider reporting your solution.
Because it is not a direct object. Nothing is happening to it. "To be" is a stative verb and takes a subject complement. It's merely describing the subject.
Why isn't the translation "a vegetarian"? Shouldn't the sentence be: "Li ne manĝas porkaĵon ĉar li estas vegetarana"
The translation can be "...a vegetarian". Esperanto does not have the indefinite article, and both ways are equally common in English.