"Many translators need secretaries."
Translation:Multaj tradukistoj bezonas sekretariojn.
If secret is sekreto, why isn't secretary sekretisto?
(1350-1400; Middle English secretarie one trusted with private or secret matters; confidant)
Because Esperanto is not Middle English and was created from languages in which the noun secretary had already a not-secret-related meaning but rather a work assistant meaning.
Still pointless, but...
It's not (directly) the meaning, but the ending. Doing a simple search on an online eo-en dictionary show roughly only 4 out of 23 words ending with -ario being people who do things. In contrast, looking at words that end with -isto shows the vast majority are people who do things.
The root sekret- is still there in the word; why not follow the logic of other work related words of root-isto? (kuracisto, muzikisto, instruisto...)
But, if you want to drop the keeping secrets aspect and focus on the writing-things-down aspect why isn't it skribisto?
Yes, of course you are right. But I think that in this case -ario is not an ending so the root is "sekretario" and the other 22 words with the -ario ending are the roots by themselves. But, yes, "sekretisto" and "skribisto" would make much more sense.
"multe da" is more like "much" and "multaj" more like "many". The distincion is not that clear as in English. If you say "multe da", it's more like "a mass of".
is there a reason why "multaj da" isn't accepted? why wouldn't you use the "da" in that case?
After "multaj" you would directly expect a plural noun, so you would not link the adjective to the noun by a preposition "da".