"I only read free newspapers."
Translation:Mi legas nur senpagajn gazetojn.
I was wondering about that too, actually: whether this sentence means that the only newspapers the speaker reads are ones that are free, or that the only things the speaker reads are free newspapers. But after reading the other comments, I think it's much more likely to be the first.
Would "libera" also work here, or does that only mean free as in having liberty?
"Senpaga/senkosta gazeto" is a newspaper for which you don't need to pay. "Libera gazeto" is probably one that's not connected to the government or any ruling authority, but you might still have to pay for it. I'm not quite sure if that kind of newspaper would be called "free" in English.
In Australia, I have always thought" I have a free newspaper - is the local newspaper that is delivered on your front lawn for free and the newspaper cost nothing as it is paid for by advertising. "Free newspaper" = not costing any money. "Free Press" is the liberty to write anything without censorship. I see that "senpaga" is the correct, but if I was talking to an Australian "libera gazeto", seems to me, to also be OK.
I think the English 'free' works in the context of 'Libera gazeto'. For instance, the Winnipeg Free Press is a for-pay newspaper.
“Free” before “press” usually indicates liberty. “Free” before “newspaper”, “periodical”, etc is understood as indicating price. That usage is the default way, but can be changed in special contexts (“We couldn’t afford BBC’s price, but a local newspaper promised us free press”.). I presume the reasons for this are historical and/or semantic/logical. Semantically, “the newspaper” is a more tangible, less abstract thing than “the press”, as are the respective “free”, as in price, and “free”, as in liberty. I’m not an English expert, but I am a native speaker, speaking from experience and acquired logic.
It is an unlikely usage to put it that way, but my comment was merely that it is a possible usage.The problem with these sentences in Duolingo is that thanks to the ambiguity of natural language, it's possible to make all kinds of sentences that are perfectly grammatical while being unusual or uncommon in actual spoken English.
In the correct context, a 'free newspaper' could easily be used in either sense (senpaga/libera), though the senpaga sense would be most likely.
I would say gazetoj are magazines, usually glossy and/or full of pictures. I would say ĵurnaloĵ have more meat, like a newspaper, or a scientific journal. But that may be an english, Australian or personal view.
Why the word for "only" is created to be "nur" instead of "nure"? I suppose that all adverb ends in -e.
For this particular sentence, would it be more effective to place SENPAGAJN after GAZETOJN to emphasize that the subject only reads the newspapers if they are free? Malgranda demando.
Not sure if that emphasizes would be understood as such. I'd personally mark it with stress and pitch when speaking. But in any case, your sentence sounds natural and should be accepted.
I tried: "Mi legas senkostajn jxurnalojn nur", and "Nur mi legas senkostajn jxurnalojn", which were marked incorrect because of where I placed "nur". Why? I thought word order wasn't supposed to be important.
Word order isn't completely free. Some words have to precede other words to make sense, such as prepositions and articles. But also some adverbs always stand in front of the element they modify, such as ne, ankaŭ or nur. Your second example is correct Esperanto, but means something different – "Only I read free magazines." (and no one else). When those adverbs are placed before the verb, they often modify the whole sentence, in a similar way as in English.
I couldn't find any translation for "non-free" in Reta Vortaro. Is this simply paga, or malsenpaga, which looks like a double negation?
I used liberajn, in the sense of a free press, which seems an acceptable translation of the English sentence given. I do not read newspapers which are not free to publish news.
More context is required, in the English sentence, to tell the difference between those newspapers that have no cost to acquire and those that are not restricted in what they publish.
I will report it.