1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Li rajtas manĝi bone."

"Li rajtas manĝi bone."

Translation:He is allowed to eat well.

June 13, 2015



He is allowed to eat well. We make sure to take care of our prisoners here, after all. Unless they try to escape, of course. Then there are consequences. We hope that the misfortune of discovering what these are does not befall you.


I thought "rajti" might mean "to write" for a second, before I realized that "he writes eating well" made no sense at all.


Because He is allowed to eat well has SO much sense.


write = scribi, right?


"To write" is actually "skribi". You're close.

  • 1442

That's good to know!


man am I bad at rolling my r


I don't get it, why "rajtas" means to allow the own subject? Why is the subject the destinatary of the action? Shouldn't it be "li rajtas lin" or something like that? Could it be equivalent to dürfen in german?


https://en.glosbe.com/eo/en/rajti It means roughly "to be allowed to."


What does this mean? Who might be requiring him to eat badly? "You there, have some spoiled food, and let some run out of your mouth from time to time."

I don't get what this is meant to convey.


The famous last meal before an execution?


Wait... so this is a RIGHT?!!?!!???


Thanks for the good way to remember the word, but sadly, you deleted your account.


Uh...what the heck, duolingo?!?

[deactivated user]

    It seems strange that the same Esperanto word can mean bot "has a right to" (which is the meaning my dictionary gives for "rajtas"), and "is allowed to" (which is how Duo translates it here). "Allowed to" seems to have the idea of being given permission.


    He is "allowed" to "rajtas" a letter


    li rajtas skribi leteron


    How about:

    "Mi rajtas manĝi bone."?


    Mi rajtas vivi! Mi rajtas pensi!


    How would you say to allow [something]? As in, to allow him to go or to allow something to happen.


    I always second guess myself with these strange sentences.


    Why wouldn't he be allowed to eat well?

    [deactivated user]

      I can imagine a context where such words might be said. For instance, two people are discussing a mutual acquaintance who is in prison. One says to the other, "He's not allowed to play tennis or use a mobile phone." "No," says the other, "but he is allowed to eat well."

      Personally, I would translate "rajtas" as "has the right to", which is not quite the same thing as being allowed or permitted to do something.

      • 2092

      In many schools canteens in the US, it seems that only terrible food is available. Although I hope that having one's own lunch is always possible.


      I am imagining some dystopian future where table manners offend certain cultures...


      Hi, with me the translation was of this sentence was : He's a right to eat well. That should be without the a. Isn't it.: He is right to eat well.

      [deactivated user]

        Not really. In English, to be right is something quite different to having the right to do something. "He is right to eat well" would mean that he has made the correct decision to eat well. However, "He has a right to eat well" means that eating well is something that he should be able to do by right. It's this second meaning that translates the Esperanto sentence, "Li rajtas manĝi bone".


        Thank you David, now it is very clear.


        "No, you have been bad today, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EAT WELL"


        Sofia explains her position about Adamo


        "He is allowed to eat well?" I don't understand the meaning. For me it doesn't flow in english, It doesnt make sense

        [deactivated user]

          I agree, as I mentioned in an earlier message. "Allowed" seems to imply that someone has given him permission to eat well, whereas "rajtas" means that he doesn't need permission, because it is his right to eat well. I would translate it, "He has the right to eat well".


          "He can eat well" was not accepted. Is this so different from "may"?

          [deactivated user]

            In my opinion, neither "can" nor "may" really translate "rajtas". The sentence really means, "He has the right to eat well." "He can it well" would be "Li povas manĝi bone" or "Li eblas manĝi bone".


            Why wouldnt he?!?


            Cxiu devu rajti mangxi bone!


            This is a very weird and disturbing sentence. Can we please go back to dancing in the park?

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