"Kiu venkis la glacihokean matĉon inter Kanado kaj Rusio?"
Translation:Who won the ice hockey match between Canada and Russia?
28 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Why is it "matĉo", not "maĉo" or "matŝo"? The t-sound seems to be duplicated. Would there even be an audible difference?
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.)
Akceptanta, sed mi mem preferas uzi maĉado-n simple por eviti fuŝaĵojn.
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.
Matĉo (kaj maĉo) is entirely derived from the English "match". I've been searching for another modern word which is similar and cannot find one, yet.
However, don't forget the circumflex or you will have maco which is a type of unleavened flatbread.
I would read one as matcho and the other one as macho (spanish sound system). They sound different to me.
The difference is very minimal. If you pronounce them carefully, the difference is where you ‘pause’ between syllables:
• maĉo: [ˈmɑ.t͡ʃɔ];
• matĉo: [ˈmɑt.t͡ʃɔ];
• matŝo: [ˈmɑt.ʃɔ].
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/)!
Ooh, very interesting! That is such a subtle difference though. It's kind of tricky to do without overenunciating haha. (I don't speak Polish or anything though, so the stop+affricate doesn't occur in one syllable in any language I speak as far as I know.)
This is how I understood these too. To me, the differences are clear as day! Though, to be fair, they're easy to mix if you're speaking too fast. :P
Yes, indeed, in casual speak matĉo merges with maĉo. Fortunately it's hard to think of a situation where the context does not disambiguate this :p.
Especially since maĉ- is typically a verb, and matĉ- is usually a noun.
Interesting though, one of my old dictionaries has maĉo for the word we are learning as matĉo. Apparently someone somewhere decided that distinguishing these two in writing was more important.
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].
Haha, that is clever. That also undermines my /a/ sound argument xd, as maĉmatĉo would be pronounced with two short as (i.e. [ɑ]).
Bona demando estas.
Venki signifas: conquer, vanquish; beat, defeat, overthrow, prevail against, triumph over; gain the victory.
Gajni signifas: Gain, make, obtain; acquire, earn, secure, win.
Do, kio vi pensas?
I guess it works. It kinda seems like somebody's against the hockey game itself, but I think that I understand. Thanks!
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
Mi havis la saman demendon, kaj mi pensas, ke "gajnis" estus pli bone en ĉi tiu frazo.
I can hear what you are complaining about, but find, for myself, that it isn't a big issue. He is clearly and perfectly understandable.
