"La aktoro esplorus la rolon se ŝi havus sufiĉe da mono."

Translation: The actor would research the role if she had enough money.

[Jones_Rick]

Why not " la aktorino esplorus la rolon se sxi havus suficxe da mono ?

[mizinamo]

"Aktorino" is specifically feminine; I would use it if the original sentence contained the specifically feminine "actress".

Since the original has the gender-neutral (originally male) "actor", it's probably best to translate it into the gender-neutral "aktoro".

[Jones_Rick]

Yes, but subsequently they used "she"to refer to the actor. That does not make logical sense.

[Jones_Rick]

It is not clear from the sentence if the actor and she are the same person or not. It is ambiguous.

[mizinamo]

That is true.

[AGreatUserName]

Is there any particular reason to say "sufiĉe da mono" instead of just "sufiĉan monon"?

[mizinamo]

It sounds more natural and idiomatic to me.

Similarly with "multe da mono" rather than "multan monon".

[AGreatUserName]

Ah, I just find it illogical because the phrase "multe da mono" can be either the subject or the object of the sentence (Multe da mono povas doni problemojn. Mi ne havas multe da mono), but the head is an adverb, so you can't show case on it.

For example, in the sentence "Sufiĉe da mono ne havas tro da homoj," we're relying on context to know that it's probably "Too many people don't have enough money," but it could, theoretically also be "Enough money doesn't have too many people." And what about "Ĉasas multe da katoj multe da hundoj"? Are there lots of cats chasing lots of dogs or vice versa? A little bit of ambiguity is fine of course - Esperanto was not designed to be a loglang - but I just find it weird to use an adverb phrase in syntactic positions that require noun phrases or pronouns. (I suppose verbal infinitives are the same as they can also be subjects or objects ... and I accept that with less annoyance.)

Thinking aloud ... don't mind me.