"One liter is not a lot."
Translation:Unu litro ne estas multo.
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. Surely "mult~" is modifying "unu litro" rather than "estas." If it were modifying "estas," the implication of the sentence would seem to be that one liter doesn't exist very much. Does "mult~" just take the adverbial form by default and only become an adjective when it's directly adjacent to a noun?
I guess "multe" modifying "estas" and "multa" modifying "unu litro" are both possible ways of understanding it. I say this because in a question that asked me to choose between the two for this sentence, both of those choices were correct.
Multe is not describing "litro", but "unu". "Unu litro ne estas multa" would mean that "alia litro ja estas multa"
Well, a lot is a noun used figuratively as an adverb. That said, could one use multa here?
I suppose because it is short for "Unu litro ne estas multe da io": "One liter is not a lot of something." Why "multe" and not "multa" is used in front of "da" I do not know, but I have never seen an adjective in front of "da".
The question is not why multe and not multa, but why multe and not multo, since the latter, being a noun, is what you would expect in front of da.
Multo is also acceptable(I got this in choose all correct answers)...I think multo actually makes more sense because you are saying that "one liter" is equivalent to another noun which makes more sense.
In fact, the given correct translation (from English to Esperanto) at the top of this comments page is now: "Unu litro ne estas multo".
because 'da' follows a quantity of some kind. therefore, if you have a 'cup of' or a 'litre of' you expect to know what you have a litre or cup of, right?
Yes, I went to check "Being Colloquial In Esperanto" and that agrees with you, but it also says to use da with adverbs indicating a quantity, like multe, tro, or iom.
Also da cannot be used with plural nouns, etc. But the key thing is that one need not expect that a noun needs to precede da, neither need one expect an adverb to do so. Adjectives are a bit trickier.
(I'm looking at you kelka)
It is very confusing. At the time of the writing, there are 83 comments, and I didn't find a simple answer to that simple question. It even seems that the many people involved do not agree on the question itself.
I'll try to give some more information in the hope that we can get a clear answer:
Now, Duo refuses multa, and proposes instead both multe and multo. See following screenshot:
As I understand it:
- Unu litro ne estas multo: One liter is not a large amount. OK, I understand.
- Unu litro ne estas multe: One liter is not much. I'm not sure to understand why it should be linked to the verb.
- Unu litro ne estas multa: One liter is not much. I definitely do not understand why it is considered false. => Should I report it?
Sorry for the redundancy, but all answers given here are really confusing to me, maybe also because of my average understanding of English.
Multa is, in Esperanto terms, an a-word. It is an adjective, but of an special kind, called determiner. Determiners can be used as attributes of a noun (as in “the red car” and in “many cars”, where both “red” and “many” serve as adjectives) but not, strictly speaking, as predicates (as in “the car is red”), because this sort of sentences need either an adjective or a noun as predicate. I suppose the confusion stems from the fact that a determiner can function as a pronoun (like in “many came to the meeting”) or even a noun (as in “there are many”). The same goes for Esperanto. On top of that, e-words (normally adverbs) can also function as nouns. This is the reason why both multo and multe are accepted as predicates. In my opinion (but I am no expert), multa should too (functioning as a noun). Maybe you would like to check it out here, under O-vorteca uzo. Perhaps I am plain wrong, or it is simply a missing acceptable sentence in the database.
Heady stuff, though! ;-)
From what I understood, "multo" is the noun, so it represents "a large quantity". On the other hand, "multe" is the adverb, which is "a lot", "very much".
In my sentence it was multo. Is it considered to be a noun? I am confused. I would have translated unu litro ne estas multa. An adverb does not make sense here.
Have you read any of the other comments here? Your question has been asked, and answered, several times
Ok, so a lot of times when I answer questions like these I get it right but then it says i'm wrong. But I check over all my answers so please help
Always report it if you feel confused, or are certain that you got something right, or that Duo screwed up.
i got it wrong for putting "Unu litro ne multe". Do you have to have the "estas" after "ne"?
Yes, you do, a proper sentence needs a verb, but put the ne better before multe because it is this you want to modify.
Most languages, Esperanto and English included, require a verb in a complete sentence.
There is no such rule in Esperanto or English. Examples: "What?", "How so?" and similar question sentences in English. Also, "You!!" "Nice!" and other interjectional and vocative sentences. These types of sentences no doubt exist in Esperanto as well. I could go on. Next you'll be saying other prescriptivist nonsense like you can't start a sentence with a conjunction, split an infinitive, or use words like "irregardless." Also, you can have something that is often used called a null verb in a sentence (e.g. "You done yet?").
When I say complete sentence, I am referring to sentences that include both a subject and an object. This person could have omitted if we were talking about Turkish, but we aren't, so we must keep the verb to relate one part to the other, and in regards to the other rules you stated, the only one I slightly believe in the conjunction because you can compose some acrobatics with syntax that has it at the beginning, but at the same time doesn't.
I don't know , she might have a point. I't a crude phrase, but I guessing it could be acceptable depending on the context, and how you use it. The best example I have is in Spanish: Some one could ask you "Gusta un litro de agua?" you could respond "Un litro no mucho, mejor dos." The proper response should be "Un litro no es mucho, mejor dos" without omitting the "es". But this answer, I believe , would still be acceptable in quite a few cases.
I Don't know. Maybe it's just my English background where omitting a verb in a complete sentence (my definition) has connotations of poor education and/or a southern upbringing.
No, it's a thing that means "a few", and you would have to take out the "not" in the sentence to switch the words out.
So i used the option with multe the first time and was wrong. I used multo the 2nd time and was also wrong.... what is going on?
Yes. Multe is normally an e-word –an adverb–, but can be also used as a noun. Please take the time to read my former comments on the subject.
How much is a litre? Not much. Ne multe.
What is a litre? Not a large amount. Ne multo.
What kind is a litre? That’s not a form of question you hear often. But if it has to, it could be expensive (“Shall we buy one litre or half a litre?” “One liter is expensive!”), even wet (“Got any water?” “I have a litre.” “What kind is it?” “Uh, wet, I guess.”)… but not really multa. How would you even translate that to English?
Try moving the adjective back to before the noun: “multa homojn” means “many people”; “multa akvo” means “much water”; *“multa litro” means what? (Even worse when you remember that Duo’s sentence says “one litre”.)
“Much water” may not always be syntactically usable in place of an adjective+noun in English (e. g. “the much water” doesn't seem right), but at least it makes (some) sense (and it is usable sometimes). “Much litre” doesn’t make sense.