1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Esperanto
  4. >
  5. "Is there some fat on the mea…

"Is there some fat on the meat?"

Translation:Ĉu estas iom da graso sur la viando?

June 17, 2015



So why is the fat ON the meat, instead of IN it?


I suspect that it could be either “in” or “on” depending on the meat. With some meats you have streaks of fat running through the meat (such as streaky bacon) where “in” would be more appropriate. Some meats have a more significant layer of fat on the outside where “on” would be better, but “around” might be better still.


For me too (?) "on"/"sur" gives an impression that someone has poured some extra fat on the meat, instead of being there naturally.


Is there a reason we need "da" in this sentence? I read this as: Is there some of fat on the meat.


Iom means "Some amount" not just "some." So what the sentence says is "some quantity of fat…" Which is why da is here.


Ok, thank you. I'll try to remmeber that.


Why doesn't kelka work?


Have you tried turning your kelka off and on again?


This really should have been responded to 2 years ago.
Iom = "some amount" be it a number, measurable quantity, or uncountable amount.
Kelka = some, an indeterminate number, a few. In fact I first learned the word as meaning "a few" and always have a mild negative reaction when it's used as "many."


It says I have a spelling mistake when I used the words IT supplied, and offered this as the correct solution: "Ĉu estas ioma graso sur la viando?" The difference I made is I arranged the words to have this as my solution: "Ĉu estas iom da graso sur la viando?" It didn't give me ioma, it only provided iom.


Was this a "pick a word" exercise? If so, and you somehow added a word, then I'm impressed. But iom is the lesson here, and, unless you can argue a good reason for ioma (like, do you know exactly what it means?) then you'd best stick with the given lesson.
When I was a komencanto I used to always say ioma when I should have been saying iom it just felt like it flowed better, and quantities are descriptive words, Right?


Why is 'oleo' is not acceptable here? Oil is also a fat.


My considered, but possibly incompetent take is that fat is a solid, and oleo is a liquid.
What's that you say, but oleomargarine is a solid. Not really, if you look at the chemistry involved you'll see that margarine is a suspension, and easily becomes liquid at room temperature, one of the definitions of oils.
There's more, but not from me.


I think it's because: oil might be a fat, but not all fats are oil, like butter or in this case the fat from the meat, so 'fat' is a more general term that could mean oil or another fat.


It implies here that some fat stands for some quantity of fat, but why not some kind of fat, which is evident for English speakers?


How many different kinds of fat are there?


Do you want the full scientific explanation or the cook's answer?
The answer for Randy is that would be ia graso which sounds as if someone doesn't know what's on the meat, and should it really be eaten?
What's evident for English speakers isn't always evident for Esperanto speakers.

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