"Working often is not easy."
Translation:Labori ofte ne estas facile.
i'm confusted as to why the correct answer uses "easy" as an adverb. Isn't the 'working' the thing that is (not) 'easy'? or ultimately is 'facile' becuase labori is a verb still? although it's being used as a verbal noun in this context...? Bonvolu helpi min!
Short answer: it's an adverb because the subject is a phrase ("labori ofte") rather than a noun.
Adjectives modify nouns; if you have a verb instead, you have to use an adverb.
Similarly if you shorten the phrase to just a verb -- "Kanti estas bone", to sing is good, singing is good.
You can't use "bona" because there is no noun.
This analysis is incorrect. The noun "laborii" is the subject of this sentence. Infinitives are verbal nouns.
This analysis is incorrect.
Infinitives are not treated like nouns in Esperanto.
Esperanto is not Latin. English is not Latin.
Both the English and the Esperanto sentences are ambiguous in this respect.
Neither needs be, with the addition of a comma in one of the senses:
"Often, working is not easy"
"Ofte, labori ne estas facile"
None of the arguments for the adverb form being 'correct' are in the least convincing. It is obviously a perfectly straight adjective in its mode of use, just spelt wrong... with an 'e' where an 'a' should be.
It is not spelled incorrectly; the 'e' is supposed to be there.
http://bertilow.com/pmeg/gramatiko/specialaj_priskriboj/perverba/subjekto.html#i-7g3 provides two examples from the Ekzercaro de la Fundamento, the collection of exercises Zamenhof created for learners to serve as a model:
- Resti kun leono estas danĝere.
- Morti pro la patrujo estas agrable.
Words with -e ending are used if the subject is an infinitive (in -i) or a clause (ke ..., ĉu ..., etc.).
Well, we will have to disagree about that, I'm afraid. If that means that I also disagree with Zamenhof, then so be it! Hey! Nothing is new. There is a long history of people pointing out where La Doctoro got it wrong. Thank you for posting.
I find it unusual as well :) And I'm not trying to convince you that it's logical or obvious.
The point is just that, if I want to speak Esperanto, this is the construction I will have to use, whether I agree with Zamenhof's decision or not.
If I disagree with the internal logic, my choices are basically limited to not speaking Esperanto, or to speaking Esperanto "illogically".
Correcting a perceived mistake will make me speak something that's not Esperanto.
(And that's a bit pointless, in my opinion; if I don't want to speak Esperanto, I might as well speak English, rather than using a "corrected Esperanto" which nobody else speaks.)
While I have some sympathy for your position, I feel it acts against the ethic behind the original creation of this rather special language.
Esperanto exists to communicate unambiguously, the mechanism being a dramatically simple and entirely consistent construction. It does not exist to counter the quirks of other languages by having its OWN SET of oddball inconsistences that confound the sense and have to be learned by rote ...
Therefore, although they are so amazingly rare, we have to decide what to do when these quirks crop up. Do we work within the rules of Esperanto's construction, following its ethic, and change things to restore consistency and comprehension..?
... or do we just go along with what may be, as you say, "unusual," just BECAUSE it has become "usual?" Isn't that the biggest disincentive to learning ordinary languages... the fact that they have become, by custom and practise over time, a collection of exceptions to their own "rules?"
I think you now know which side of that dilemma I happen to think is most in line with the aims and ideals of Esperanto itself.
And, like I say, this is not a new dilemma. There have been ructions among International Esperantist on JUST this sort of thing... almost from day one.
Thank you for posting. :-) Oh... and IDO see your point. (there is an in-joke there. Gotta be quick to spot it, though.)
I guess it boils down to how netuŝebla one considers the Fundamento to be.
Personally, I'm more of the opinion that it's better to have something stable and reasonably consistent than to have something that's a continual moving target for tinkering in the name of improvements and greater consistency. (And that comprehension follows from learning the language the way it is presented.)
I think we will have to agree to disagree here :)
All the best!