"A group of trees is a forest."
Translation:Aro de arboj estas arbaro.
Can I assume that you can translate forest to arbaro, but not the other way around? An arbaro is not necessary a forest if it only has three trees?
In English a forest doesn’t have to have any trees. It was, historically, an area set aside for hunting. For example: http://www.visit-exmoor.co.uk/experience/exmoor-forest
My finger slipped and I wrote "aro de arbok".
I'm pretty sure playing Pokémon in Esperanto would be a good way to get used to the language.
The "ejo" ending is used with verbs not nouns, so it is rather 'a place where you do things'. Example: lerni = to learn, lernejo = a school (a place where you learn); pregxi = to pray, pregxejo = a church (a place when you pray)
I think the distinction between verbs and nouns is pretty arbitrary in Esperanto where we can just switch between word classes by changing the ending. I think -ejo is more linked to a purpose. Kafejo - the place to have coffee (being Swedish, I find nothing strange with the verb kafi, but I notice that kafumi is more commonly used). I found a translation for arbejo online, and they translated it as an arboretum, which are trees planted with purpose. You might say the same thing about some forests, and maybe these forests could in that case be called arbejo. Or how would you see it?
There is no verb "kafi" in vortaro.net. Places denoted by "ejo" tend to have purposes, but that doesn't mean that they derive from verbs, for example: abatejo (abbey), abelejo (apiary), agentejo (agency); these were the first three "ejo" words in an online Esperanto/English dictionary. None of them derive from verbs.
The derivation of preĝejo that I was given was preĝo-ejo but the root word for preĝo is the verb preĝi, so it seems reasonable to say that this one was derived from a verb.
There being so many examples of noun derived "ejo" places, for which there is no root verb (like your example of retejo), I suspect that Daniel is mistaken in his assertion that there is a general rule to say that "ejo" places are derived from verbs.
Edit: http://vortaro.net/#Arbejo Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto gives arbejo as equivalent to arbaro in one of its meanings.
Yeah, kafi wouldn't make too much sense as it should mean something along the lines of "being coffeeish" or "containing coffee". Tiu ĉi dolĉaĵo kafas. People would probably understand me, but it sounds weird now that I've tried to find a use for it. I'll stick to "Ĉu ni kafumu?" then.
I'm sure there is an explanation but I thought we used "da" for quantity?
https://adventuresinesperanto.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/clutch-of-eggs/ explains it well:
How many soldiers are there? – Grupo da soldatoj (A group of soldiers)
What kind of group is that? – Grupo de soldatoj (A group of soldiers)
The sentence here falls into the second category. We aren't particularly interested in the quantity of the trees (then da would be used) but more in the kind of group we're looking at.