Translation:Who won the ice hockey match between Canada and Russia?
Because "maĉo" is already "an act of chewing".
But "matĉo" is an odd word; it doesn't really fit very well into Esperanto's sound system. It seems to have been borrowed by spelling from English "match". "maĉo" would be better if that root hadn't already been "taken".
Theoretically, there is a distinction between "matĉo", "maĉo", and "matŝo", but in practice I think they will sound very similar. (Except maybe to a Pole, who has practice distinguishing between "czy" and "trzy", i.e. roughly "ĉi" and "tŝi"....)
"Budĝeto" is another such awful word. Fortunately, in the 8th official addition to the Esperanto dictionary, the alternative "buĝeto" was added. ("Budĝeto" itself is from the 3rd official addition.)
Officially you separate affixes and there are some other specifics, which I don't know. However, when you actually pronounce them, naturally you split some affixes. For instance, I would say /pɔˈmu.jɔ/ (po-mu-jo) instead of /pɔmˈui̯.ɔ/ (pom-uj-o), the latter being the official hyphenation. Similarly, it should technically be /budˈd͡ʒɛt.ɔ/ (bud-ĝet-o) instead of the more easily pronounced /budˈd͡ʒɛ.tɔ/ (bud-ĝe-to).
I agree that Joffysloffy is making it more difficult than it needs to be. The correct syllabication for words generally has one vowel and one consonant per syllable whenever possible. There will, of course be exceptions, for instance in words with more consonants than vowels, or vice versa or when the radical is polysyllabic, and grammar markers are where those very often land.
So Kuirejo = ku-ir-ej-o (the radical kuir- is polysyllabic)
Budĝeto = bud-ĝet-o (an exception to the general rule due to the larger number of consonants involved. Also the radical is polysyllabic)
Pomujo = pom-uj-o (Pom- is the radical, but in practice I do hear po-mo ) and…
Matĉ-o (Again because the radical is monosyllabic) but… Maĉ-ad-o
I hope that this helps.
Mi samopinias; maĉado estas senambigua kaj ĝi superfluigas maĉo-n. Aliflanke, Esperanto funkcias laŭ la principo, ke oni ne uzu afiksojn, se ili ne necesas: ekz. kreaĵo anstataŭ kreitaĵo. Kaj laŭ tio, maĉo estus preferenda.
Krome, ĉar ankaŭ maĉo taŭgas laŭ PIV, ĝi tamen eble estas uzita.
Note that you don't even need a syllable break to distinguish them!
For example, in Polish there is a minimal pair between "czy" (Esperanto "ĉu") and "trzy" (Esperanto "tri"): [t͡ʃɨ] vs. [tʃɨ] -- the only difference is whether it's an affricate (/ĉ/) or a sequence of stop+affricate (/tŝ/)!
Yeah, indeed. And it's hard to come up with a sentence where both an act of chewing and a sporting match would fit :p… (At least, one that's not totally trivial, e.g., “I like …”.)
I remember seeing maĉo for matĉo as well.
I just realized, that the /a/ sound in Esperanto usually is [a] at the end of a syllable and [ɑ] otherwise. So even if you don't distinguish ⟨ĉ⟩ and ⟨tĉ⟩, you can still distinguish the /a/ by pronouncing maĉo as [ˈma.t͡ʃɔ] and matĉo as [ˈmɑ.t͡ʃɔ].
I share your concerns and would normally either say “gajnis la … matĉon” or “venkis en la … matĉo.” But then an accusative can often replace a preposition if no doubts are possible, so the sentence seems acceptable.
Edit: I have changed my mind about this. According to NPIV, the direct object of “venki” is always the adversary, not the contest or the prize (which could be used with “gajni”). So the sentece should probably be
- Kiu venkis en la glacihokea matco inter Kanado kaj Rusio?
- Kiu gajnis la glacihokean matĉon inter Kanado kaj Rusio?
Roughly, I would translate
- venki = to defeat, to outplay, to vanquish, to overwhelm.
- gajni = to win