"Li estas kaj malsana kaj malforta."

Translation:He is both sick and weak.

3 years ago

40 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/Kreilyn
Kreilyn
  • 25
  • 20
  • 14
  • 13
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
  • 6
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3

Hej viro, Ĉu vi parolas pri mi?

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Andy474419
Andy474419
  • 11
  • 10
  • 8
  • 8
  • 4

Why is kaj in front of estas?

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/noureddin95

You can say "he is sick and weak." But you want to emphasize the fact that he is BOTH sick and weak. So you use the structure "both..and" to convey this meaning.

In Esperanto, as many languages, this kind of structures (both..and, either..or, neither..nor, etc) is made by repeating the conjunction:

  • He is both sick and weak = Li estas kaj malsana kaj malforta.
  • He is either sick or weak = Li estas malsana malforta.
  • He is neither sick nor weak = Li estas nek malsana nek malforta. (usually, "nek" is used in pairs.)

You may want to know more. Take a look at this chapter in PMEG.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/VinoVirinoKanto

This would have confused the hell out of me ( as a native English speaker) if I had not read the tips and notes section on the website. Those who only use the smartphone app should consider reviewing the "tips and notes" that can be accessed through the website version of Duolingo. I was prepared to see this because of the discussion of paired conjunctions.

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/brunofrra
brunofrra
  • 12
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10

"Usually". Would it also be correct to say "li ne estas malsana nek malforta"? Or does it create some double negative confusion?

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Louis369947
Louis369947
  • 20
  • 19
  • 15
  • 12
  • 688

It's correct. Like saying in English "he isn't sick, he isn't weak either"

2 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Cavman144
Cavman144
  • 18
  • 11
  • 9
  • 9
  • 4

can someone answer? 'cause I'm wondering that too.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Migranto
Migranto
  • 12
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 3

Ne estu timida . Rakontu nin kiel vi vere sentas...

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/ruiz.osvaldo

if there's anyone who's checking , you should do something about when one has a mistake when just entering the first letters you get two inaudible audios or even three.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/SquirlRat
SquirlRat
  • 25
  • 3
  • 1194

If that happens you might be able to 'reset' the audio by simultaneously pressing the Space and AltGr keys (that works on my UK English keyboard on Windows 7, not sure about others)

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/gcgupta
gcgupta
  • 13
  • 12
  • 7
  • 6
  • 4
  • 4

he is sick as well as weak

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/JackyDW
JackyDW
  • 10
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 6
  • 3
  • 2

Kaj mi pensis ke "kaj" nur signifis "kaj"!

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/DanielGarr830049

Tiel malafable!

7 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/ProtocolDroid

If sana means healthy than shouldn't malsana just be unhealthy? It's the same magnitude in the opposite, mal, direction.

4 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/JakubK666
JakubK666
  • 11
  • 11
  • 6
  • 3
  • 26

Wasn't “kaj … kaj” taken straight from Polish as well?

3 weeks ago

https://www.duolingo.com/MurrKyan

hi jacky

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Respro
Respro
  • 10
  • 7
  • 5
  • 4

Mi kunsentas kun Duo ke 'He is both sick and weak' certe estas pli bona ol 'He is and sick and weak', but the latter should be accepted too.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/draquila

No, because the latter does not even resemble proper English. No native speaker would ever form that sentence and it doesn't mean anything.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/TheRealFlenuan
TheRealFlenuan
  • 13
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 6
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2

Why the double of kaj? I like most features of Esperanto, but the doubling of conjunctions is just stupid.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/talideon
talideon
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 23
  • 22
  • 20
  • 13

This kind of thing isn't uncommon in languages. Your lack of familiarity with the construction doesn't make it stupid.

For instance, in French to say "neither A nor B", you say "ni A ni B", while "either A or B" is "ou A ou B". Esperanto simply uses that same pattern of conjunctions with "both A and B".

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/JDW2666
JDW2666
  • 17
  • 16
  • 3
  • 2

I was thinking the same, spanish also does this. I love the double conjunction, because it's refreshing that they can do more than one thing in a sentence. The English "and" is too limited, IMHO.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Rippler
Rippler
  • 13
  • 12
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6
  • 4

That's in latin too.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/talideon
talideon
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 23
  • 22
  • 20
  • 13

Thanks for the natural language example! That goes to show this isn't just something that Zamenhof plucked out of nowhere!

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/lyubomirv
lyubomirv
  • 18
  • 14
  • 14
  • 14
  • 3
  • 648

In Bulgarian too.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/niamhwitch
niamhwitch
  • 21
  • 11
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1347

Thank you for explaining this, talideon.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/TheRealFlenuan
TheRealFlenuan
  • 13
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 6
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2

When did I say I was unfamiliar with it? I actually did know of it, including the example in French. And just because a feature is common among languages doesn't make it logical.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/talideon
talideon
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 23
  • 22
  • 20
  • 13

There's very little in any language that's particularly logical, and I never said that it was logical, only that it wasn't stupid.

The same construction also crops up in Latin as "et X et Y", Greek as "kai X kai Y", Turkish, Armenian, many of the Slavic languages, Hungarian, Japanese, Mandarin, Persian, &c.

Thus, it's a very common construction in various languages around the world, including two of the Classical languages, and one many of EO's potential speakers would be familiar with, which made it a good candidate for inclusion in the language.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/sp2learn
sp2learn
  • 25
  • 11
  • 9
  • 6
  • 6

I agree with you that Esperanto does borrow from many languages and none of the structures of the language are unheard of. That being said, I agree with TheRealFlenuan that a constructed language would be more agreeable if it lost the peculiarities of other languages and was more logical. This is why I gave up on it when I was young and probably why it never became the universal language that it was supposed to become.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/talideon
talideon
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 25
  • 23
  • 22
  • 20
  • 13

Personally, I don't have any issue with the way that Esperanto does it, and don't find it any more or less logical than the way English does it.

My primary objection to what TheRealFlenuan wrote is that they're making a subjective determination of whether the construction 'foo X foo Y' (as in Esperanto and a whole bunch of other languages) is either more or less logical than the construction 'bar X foo Y' (found in English and a whole bunch of other languages). There's nothing really peculiar about either construction, though the EO construction does have one benefit: it's means you need one less piece of vocabulary.

It's more a matter of what you're familiar with as to which is more 'logical'. You're never going to be able to satisfy everybody though.

Esperanto has a tonne of other problems (its orthography, phonology, and phonotactics are, at best, questionable, for instance) as an international language, but this is definitely near the bottom of the list.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/TheRealFlenuan
TheRealFlenuan
  • 13
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 6
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2

"There's very little in any language that's particularly logical." So? Do you see that as a good thing? You realize that all of Esperanto's grammar is based on the premise that it shouldn't be illogical, don't you?

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/TheRealFlenuan
TheRealFlenuan
  • 13
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 6
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2

I know. All you're doing is repeating your original statement with more examples. Frankly, that doesn't really add anything to your point.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/johnclover

A goal of Esperanto was to be easy to learn. The eurocentricism of it aside, so many european languages have this structure, as was pointed out, so it's intuitive. And why memorize a new word for "both" when this works fine?

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/noureddin95

It doesn't have multiple meanings.
If you have ever seen PIV, in the definition of "kaj", PIV says that for a special insist, we repeat "kaj" before every element.

If in English you can say "both A and B" for "kaj A kaj B", try to translate "kaj A kaj B kaj C".

BTW, my native language is a semitic language (Afroasiatic), and we must repeat the conjunction (and, or) before every element except the first. We say "A, & B, & C".

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/TheRealFlenuan
TheRealFlenuan
  • 13
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 6
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 4
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2

Because it makes no sense. It's not intuitive from a non–Romance language perspective, nor from an objective one. And it's certainly not easy to understand or remember when trying to learn Esperanto unless you happen to be a native speaker of one of the few languages that does use the structure.

Also, "Why memorize a new word?" is a terrible argument. Esperanto has thousands of words, and adding another wouldn't have been a big deal at all. A better question would be: Why give a word multiple meanings? Or: Why incorporate a nonsensical and potentially confusing grammatical structure to a language whose grammar is pretty fine the way it is? Why overcomplicate things?

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Elesh_Norn

I'm just seeing this for the first time too, but it would appear that "kaj ... kaj" signifies "both ... and" in much the same way that "nek ... nek" signifies "neither ... nor".

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/draquila

It means fewer words to learn, because you can use "kaj" to mean "both" and "nek" to mean "neither."

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/drakovyrn
drakovyrn
  • 11
  • 11
  • 9
  • 7

Imbecile.

2 years ago
Learn Esperanto in just 5 minutes a day. For free.