"Infano estas ido de homo."

Translation:A child is an offspring of a person.

June 6, 2015

This discussion is locked.


This sentence was clearly written by an alien compiling a report for his extraterrestrial overlords…


For the first time in my life, I heard for the word offspring in this course. Every time I get to this kind of questions, I see that (strange) word again. Finally it came to my mind what that word means, it means descendant.

So the answer "A child is a descendant of a person" is accepted.


You're not a punk, are you?


Strange question, why do you ask that? I suppose there is some punk song that sings about an offspring, is something like that?


Salivanto, Perhaps he is from the UK, where the word is rarely used unless talking about music. https://www.lexico.com/definition/punk


Davgwynne - why do you keep saying that word?


I didn't know that word could have any sense not linked to the Punk subculture. Probably because that's the only sense it has in French.


Salivanto, you are right, as is usual. I will be removing my recent posts from this thread. Thanks for your input.

I have, at last, realised what your "t" meant. I'd seen it on replies to my posts before but hadn't understood. I'll pay more attention to a "t" response in future. :-)


Ĉu tial infanoj estas homidoj?

I mean, it fits the pattern.


I think that is probably what alien esperantists would call humans, or maybe even teranidoj (earth-members-offspring)


Mi ŝatas "teranidoj"


Why wouldn't "Infant" be an acceptable translation of "Infano?" Does anyone have a solid explanation for that?


Bebo = baby/infant

Infano = child


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.


Interesting, I hadn't heard about this unusual usage of infant before. I'll group it in with pants, fries, surcharge, and colors.


I knew that in the US “pants” meant trousers, “fries” meant chips and “colors” meant colours. I didn’t know that there was a difference with surcharge; are you referring to the technical accounting term? You get loads of technical terms, which tend to change meaning quickly and appear to be unrelated to the original word; my favourite is “deprecate” which means to pray against an evil (roughly) but in computing terms is about removing a feature (I’m using feature in English here - not as in computing) of an application or system.


In the US, common usage for surcharge is a government fee or a charge to pass on such a fee. Most commonly you see these in utility bills. I was quite surprised to find any list of charges is a 'surcharge' in the UK. The discrepancy has undoubtedly been propogated by those same utility companies. The get out of including these items in advertised prices.


I don't like the translation "an offspring". It would work better with "the offspring", but that wasn't an option.

I will research this a little, but I do not believe that "offspring" is a count noun in English.


Shouldn't it be 'the' offspring? ... 'An offspring' just sounds wrong in relation to a child/person


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.


that is how I wrote it


"A child is a human being's offspring" worked for me I guess it is just putting the "being" so that is it clearly a noun and not an adjective that makes it ok


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".


So can I call "child" homido" in esperanto?


I was wondering the same thing and, according to my dictionary, the answer is yes. homido = infano


I would avoid the word homido. It's not a common word and actually means different things in different contexts.


It should be a common word though. So i will attempt to use it. To me it is rather strange that a constructed language would have an exception such as this. The word 'infanoj', i will use for children, for example if i were to talk about young birds, they cannot yet fly because they are still children. I do not know if this is a correct sentence in esperanto (still learning} but i think it could be something like: Tie birdidoj ĉie ne flugas ĉar ili estas infanoj. (These bird offsprings here are not flying because they are children.)


They aren't children. I'd say:. ..ĉar ili estas ankoraŭ tro junaj


It's not clear to me in what sense it "should" be this way or that - but regardless, you're certainly welcome to use the word. I mean, I can't stop you, but I've already given my best advice here. Using the word will not have the effect you intend. Mostly the effect will be puzzled looks and kind corrections from people who think you're having trouble learning Esperanto.


Ilia flago estas blua ;)


I translated infano with baby but it was marked wrong


It's a false friend. "Infano" looks like infant (which is an english synonym for baby) but it means "child". "Baby" is "bebo".


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!


In American English the word "infant" only means "baby"; we would never use "infant" for a two-year-old child, much less an older child.


I refer you to Meriam-Webster, which I believe to be an American dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infant

“Never” - well hardly ever. ;-)


It's a pity that that entry doesn't include any sample sentences of "infant" with the meaning "minor."


OK. So the other exercise where Duo translates INFANO with BABY is wrong :-) Or maybe I AM wrong :-)))


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.'


Again with a new word for something we've already had. What about "geknabo"? Or am I overthinking this?


"Geknaboj" is always plural and means "boy(s) and girl(s)". "Infano" means "child".


So, "child" should be "homido"


La lingvo Ido estas ido de Esperanto.


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.


I guess humans are animals


Why would people not work instead of humans? Can someone please explain?


Is “A child is a man's offspring” wrong?


Homo estas a human person, not a man or a woman.


En ĉi tiu epoko, kie infanoj estas faritaj en la laboratorio, homo povas havi idojn. Mi memoras kiam ne necesitis du, kaj ne ĉiam estis sufiĉaj.


Kion tiu frazo signifas?


Duolingo diras, ke Infano estas ido de homo. Normale necesis viro kaj virino por gravedigi infanon. Foje du homoj de malsamaj seksoj ne sufiĉis, se unu aŭ ambaŭ havas problemojn. Nun, kun la teknikoj de artefarita fekundigo, spermobanko, luita utero... eĉ unu homo povas havi idon.


Normale necesis viro kaj virino por gravedigi infanon.

(Shocked face!)


sounds like they want to breed people... oh well /=


La Idoj estas bona bando!!


[deactivated user]

    So homo can mean both human and person? Seems confusing.


    Usually, most people you see are human. And most humans are people.

    [deactivated user]

      Most vehicles you see are cars and most cars are vehicles but still we have different words for the two. Also you didn't answer my question.


      Aliens ( which exist in fiction, at least) might be non-human, but are also people. Lorries (trucks if you speak American) are non-car vehicles in the same way. In English you can usually use humans and people interchangeably, even if it not usual to do so, so it shouldn't be that confusing.


      No, a lot of vehicles are not cars.


      so is ido named for the esperanto word


      Is homido also a thing to say or is it not used?


      This question gets asked a lot. I see the word "homido" mentioned six times (now 7) in this thread alone. It means "son of man" or just "human", as explained elsewhere in this thread.


      That word exists. You can find it in Bible translations. I guess it could be used to translater "man-cub" in the Jungle Book. It can also be used to talk about the offspring of human beings by comparison with other animal offspring.

      In the context of the sentence, I think it's ok.


      I would avoid the word homido. It's not a common word and actually means different things in different contexts.

      Learn Esperanto in just 5 minutes a day. For free.