Soldatoj de la mortoskadroj (death squads), kiel la Salvadoro milito, ankaŭ ne ĉiam portis uniformojn.
I had trouble hearing some of the "nuances" in this Esperanto course, but the real trouble was my small speakers in my laptop. I invested in external speakers for my laptop and my hearing of the "nuances" of Esperanto improved a lot. If you are not using a laptop, invest in an expensive set of earphones. You will be surprised at the difference!
I hear the "d", but I also hear an "r": sounds like "sorldatoj".
I think "the Esperanto voice dude" simply has an accent that makes his "o" sound like it might contain an "r" sound. I don't think the "r" sound is intentional.
I believe Chuck Smith said that "the Esperanto voice dude" is French. Maybe just his French accent causes us English-speakers to hear hints of unintentional letter sounds.
Ah, okay, yes I hear it too. But it's a semivowel and the Esperanto R should always be a tap or trill. (Like either of the Spanish ones.)
WOAH. You can think of this word as deriving from "soldo" = military pay -> "soldi" = to pay for military service -> "soldato" -> one who is paid for military service. Why on earth would the root word be military pay? that seems like much less fundamental of a concept than soldier! (I'm not complaining. I mostly just find this intriguing)
Because for most of history, the key to military affairs was could you pay people to fight for you.
So turns out, this is not the official derivation of this word. The root is soldat/o not sold/at/o, which IMHO is kind of dumb, since it's clearly related to the root sold/o and if someone ran across the word soldato, and knew the word soldo, they would definitely come to the same conclusion I had, which is very misleading.
Soldato is presumably taken from German "Soldat" - and is fundamenta. The word soldo is part of the dua aldono, and so is a more recent word than soldato.
Soldiers would rarely carry uniforms, but they would often surhavi them. Considering "carry" and "wear" are two entirely different concepts, it makes sense to use two different words.
Quite often, people who are new to Esperanto will complain or get frustrated that Esperanto is doing something weird - like using two different words for "carry" and "wear." Eventually they figure out that sometimes English is weird for doing things like having two words for porti.
True, I have no doubt english is full of weirdness, however "wear" and "carry" are demonstrably two entirely different concepts, and therefore deserve their own words in any language. Carry means to transport, wear means to use.
It is a war crime to participate in war acts without proper identification, like uniforms. That's one thing that separates lawful combatants freedom fighters from unlawful combatants t-word. The other thing is propaganda.
I say depreni but you're right about the meaning of "demeti". It's actually a little weird that of all the things people need to learn while learning a language, why would they include "to lay an egg"?
In the end, no, it isn't a joke. I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
I'm on the app, and it says "portas uniformon". I stopped by the discussion to make a point of how they were all wearing the same uniform. In some languages – like Norwegian – the object in a sentence like this would actually be singular, but I presume Esperanto is like English in that it is singular when it actually is just a single uniform they are all wearing together, and plural when they have one each?