"A chicken is not a mammal."
Translation:Kokino ne estas mamulo.
Why can't I say "Koko estas ne mamulo"? I think I did other sentences like this and got it right...
Yeah! I had the same problem. I don't see why it shouldn't be correct...
'couse "ne" should be before the verb. It's not English ("is not"), but Esperanto. Watch the other languages: Spanish: Yo no hablo (I am not talking), Polish: Ja nie mówię, Slovak: Jo nie hovorím etc.
It's never a good idea to apply the rules of language A to language B. In Esperanto, we're free to have [noun adjective] or [adjective noun] and we're free to have [verb adverb] or [adverb verb] and "ne" is an adverb like any other.
Now, if there's an actual rule that makes negation special and thus must always come before the verb, that's different. But if all we have are general rules to go by, then it's reasonable to think that "estas ne" is just as correct as "ne estas".
Not at all weird. Many groups are named with the -ulo suffix. Animals that have "mamoj" to nurse their young are "mamuloj". Animals that are known for gnawing (rodents) are called "rongxuloj." It's just another use of the -ulo ending and is not confusing in practice.
I understand, but for example the word "planedo" avoided the "-eto" ending, would be nice if it was more regular.
instead of using the root word "mamul-" they could have chosen "mamal-" or something so that there is no confusion with the "-ulo" suffix.
I think chicken is an overarching term for the animal, Koko could be rooster, and kokino could be hen. Perhaps "gekoko" could be chicken?