This is another English phrase directly translated to Esperanto. The meaning of the English sentence and the Esperanto sentence is not the same. In other words: it is an anglicism in Esperanto and should not be used in this way.
Did anybody else get "Were you entirely amused?"
Somehow I just can't shake the Esperanto & the given English into the same sentence. They don't match or parse. At least, not for me.
Similarly to Fred - I put, "Were you completely entertained?" I agree that the given "correct" answer is wrong. "Did you have fun at all?" would translate something like, "Ĉu vi iel ajn amuziĝis?"
I have just noticed that they have changed the "correct" answer to "Did you have fun all in all?" which is better.
i put did you totally have fun...which i think is in the same vein..only yours is grammatical ha!
Laŭ mi la frazo tradukiĝas al "Did you have (any) fun at all?" supozante "entute" ≈ "überhaupt" (en la Germana). Miaopinie tio sufiĉe similas al la traduko de Duolingo.
Miaopinie, "entute" ne signifas la saman, kiel la germana "überhaupt". Mi trovis en kelkaj vortaroj la jenajn signiforjn por "entute": "overall", "altogether", "as a whole", "in all", "on the whole". "entirely". "At all" ne aperas in tiu listo, cxar gxi signifas ion alian, eble en Esperanto: "ecx iomete"".
According my Esperanto dictionary, "entute" means "as a whole, altogether". In this particular instance, I believe that "all in all", "in total", would be a better translation than "at all". "At all" implies that you are afraid the person involved might not have had any fun. Whereas "all in all" or "in total" are much more neutral and imply that some of the experience may not have been great but that you believe some of the experience to probably have been ok.
Dear anglalingvanoj, please help me on this:
To me the English translation poses a somewhat logical error.
When I answer the English question "Did you have fun at all?" with "no", that means that there was no fun "at all", so no fun whatsoever, no tiny bit.
When I answer the esperanto question (as I understand it) "Ĉu vi entute amuziĝis?" with "ne", that means that there was not entirely fun involved (while "partly fun" is still possible).
"tute" means entirely, wholly; so "entute" could very roughly be something like "in its entirety/altogether". So, as far as I understand it, there could still have been "some fun parts", when I say "mi ne entute amuziĝis".
In my opinion, this a problem of the English negation, but not of the meaning of entute/at all.
"That is not bad." does not mean: "Tio ne estas malbona.", but "Tio estas bonega."
"The Queen was not amused." does not mean: "La reĝino ne amuziĝis.", but "La reĝino koleris."
"Not at all" does not mean "ne entute", but "tute ne."
An English negation converts it to its very reverse; negations in a lot of other languages negate only the fact itself.
It means "all things considered". I don't think it really translates "entute", but it's better than "at all", which really means "in any way" or "to any degree" ("iel" or "iom" in Esperanto).
I have heard "all in all" but it is certainly not common and not a phrase that I would use.
I have read the previous discussion and I cannot avoid thinking that entute reminds me of the Italian insomma –which concurs with the first entry of PIV: Konklude; resume; ĉion konsiderante k interkompensante– and therefore another possible translation could be In short, did you have fun?, which sounds somewhat better to my fledgling Esperantist ear. What do you experienced Esperantists and native English speakers think?