This sentence was clearly written by an alien compiling a report for his extraterrestrial overlords…
Why wouldn't "Infant" be an acceptable translation of "Infano?" Does anyone have a solid explanation for that?
The problem lies with various forms of English. That is, because many people who speak some forms of English do not use infant to mean child; this is despite the legal definition of infant being a person under the age of 18, and the usual UK definition of infant being a child of between about 3 and 8 (as in infant school).
So yes, you can use infant to mean child, it just wouldn’t be understood that way in the US, or probably Australia either.
According to your translation, homo = "human being", not "humans". The translation "... of humans" is better english but "of a human" is technically correct because it is not a plural. Change homo to bovo and your wouldn't translate it "... of cows".
What about "a child is human offspring"? It was marked wrong but I'm not sure
I feel like in that sentence "Human" would be an adjective to "Offspring", so in my mind it would have been "Infano estas homa ido" or something similar.
It's a false friend. "Infano" looks like infant (which is an english synonym for baby) but it means "child". "Baby" is "bebo".
OK. So the other exercise where Duo translates INFANO with BABY is wrong :-) Or maybe I AM wrong :-)))
No. Infant is more usually an English synonym for a child. Think of Infant Schools. They are definitely not for babies! I realise that Esperanto is different from English and will have different ranges for words of similar meanings but, from what is on Duolingo, it appears that 'bebo' could be a baby, toddler, or young infant. An older infant or an older child would be 'infano'. Does 'infanoj' also cover children from birth to adulthood (as child would in English)?
I'll see your "infant school" and raise you "infant formula". There are some exceptions where infant might be used more broadly, particularly in some regional dialects (we don't have Infant Schools in Australia for instance) but generally speaking, an infant is a baby. I'm prepared to be proven wrong but check your dictionary... #1 definition on dictionary.com is "a child during the earliest period of its life, especially before he or she can walk; baby." Macquarie dictionary (my go to for Australian English) keeps it more straightforward: "a baby".
Accepted - though OED gives: a child between four and eight as 1.1 and, since my vocabulary is largely decided by how I have seen or heard a word used, then I used the most common usage (to me). Mea culpa. I should have used a dictionary before commenting. However, further research reveals that, in law, the definition is "A person who has not attained legal majority", i.e. A person under eighteen years old (or even twenty one). http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/infant
Further research using my paper dictionaries shows that Chambers (a dictionary published in Scotland - probably the best single volume dictionary of UK English) gives both "Babe" and "A person under the age of legal maturity".
Asking around I find that all (UK) graduates that I know give the meaning as "child" rather than baby, this is probably because they all went to Infant School as children.
Edit: At last, after over a month of asking random people, ( tens of them - OCD or what) I have found one person who translated the English word "Infant" into "baby" as her first choice. She did accept that it also meant child though!
Just to confuse this otherwise pretty much settled issue, today I saw in an article the word "suĉinfano" (literally suck-child, ie a child who has not been weaned). This is another word that we can use for "baby".
I wrote it as: "A child is a kid of a person." Seems harsh to be given wrong as the previous question gave "idojn" as 'kids.'
What is the difference between persono and homo? And if there is no difference which is better to use in certain context or which is used more in everyday speech?
It's the same difference as between person and human in English. In most places they could be switched around though (in fiction at least) you could be a person but not a human.
Why would people not work instead of humans? Can someone please explain?
Again with a new word for something we've already had. What about "geknabo"? Or am I overthinking this?