1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Ne estas nubo en la ĉielo."

"Ne estas nubo en la ĉielo."

Translation:There is no cloud in the sky.

June 9, 2015



I've heard this said pretty frequently, actually; like "there is not a cloud in the sky". Maybe "there are no clouds in the sky" would be more grammatically correct, but to me this just seems like an expression, like "time flies".


you are correct, the sentence structure used in this example should only be used for uncountable objects. such as there is no water in the glass, since water cannot be counted. for countable objects this type of construction in English is incorrect, being the same type of error as saying less instead of fewer.


Is there a difference between this and "Ne estas nuboj en la cxielo."? Is this allowed?


I've seen 'estas' been translated as 'there is' or 'it is' multiple times now. I understand that i have to look at the context, but i simply do not get why it can't be 'it is not a cloud in the sky.'.


So, you're looking at something and you say "it is not a cloud". That would be "tio ne estas nubo".


To my native AmEnglish ears, "There is no cloud in the sky" is a bit odd, in fact, I first misread it as "There is not a cloud in the sky" - which sounds quite alright, perhaps a little poetic. More common would be "There are no clouds in the sky."


Kutime oni diras "sur la ĉielo." La signifo de "en la ĉielo" estas malsama.


La nuboj ne estas sur la ĉielo, ili estas en la ĉielo, sur la ĉielo signifus ke ili estas pli supre ol la ĉielo, sed estas ĉielo sub kaj sur la nuboj


The tips and notes are wrong then?

Tips and notes


The most literal sense of a preposition is generally the correct word to use in Esperanto. Thus, one rides "in the train," not "on the train."

La birdoj fuĝas super la nuboj, sur la ĉielo.

So the birds fly above the clouds that are on the sky. It has to be in the sky to make sense, unless we are talking about a painting. Ĉu ne?


The sky as a dome with holes as stars is a very old model that is not up to modern scientific standards. But therefore we say on the sky rather than in the sky. Modern people know it is just our thinning atmosphere and can say in the sky. Don’t worry!


That is correct, and that is the reason, it should be sur la ĉielo, because en requires that is somehow closed space one can be inside. Sur is a general preposition for being in an open space. Now we can discuss, whether modern people perceive sky as closed or open space, but at Z's time it was definitely open.

Having said that I probably also would say en in a spontaneous situation.


https://vortaro.net/#sur_kd : "Kiam la loko estas sufiĉe vasta, ke oni prezentas ĝin al si tridimensia, oni uzas en anstataŭ sur"


True, but if you take a closer look at the examples in PIV, you see that there are a couple of sur la ĉielo. The remark concerns a more or less closed space where you can be inside: en la haveno meaning in/inside the harbour area.


In the literature, "sur la ĉielo" https://tekstaro.com/?s=5f33eada923a9 is a lot less common than "en la ĉielo" https://tekstaro.com/?s=5f33eae97940b.


Indeed it is. Even Z himself seems to have used both expressions, and your links show that toward modern times en seems to be clearly favoured. It can be that by airplanes our perception of the sky has changed.

As I wrote a year ago, I would myself say en, but if I were to write a polished text, I would probably have to doublecheck in a dictionary which one to use.


"There is no cloud in the sky" is one of the most awkwardly constructed sentences I have ever read. I doubt many native English speakers would ever come up with this particular formulation.

There isn't a cloud in the sky, There isn't a single cloud in the sky or There aren't any clouds in the sky would all be more appropriate and definitely less awkward.

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