Translation:The huge park has many small trees.
So it eta another way to say malgranda? Is it the case that some words that are opposites that have their own respective words completely?
To me, "eta" feels smaller than "malgranda".
But there are words that are opposites that have their own words - for example, "frida" for "malvarma" (usually used only in "fridujo" nowadays).
Some people, especially poets, like to use a wider variety of "non-mal words", coming up with things such as "olda" for "maljuna". Not all of them are widely used, but some do cultivate such a style.
For a list, see (for example) https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonimo , and for a shorter discussion of several alternatives, see http://bertilow.com/pmeg/vortfarado/afiksoj/prefiksoj/mal.html#i-6a5 .
For me, "olda" don't looks better than "maljuna", it even looks somehow ugly, and generally adopting antonyms spoils the language, the initial idea of simplyness decay
Most of these are really uncommon, though eta is quite common. Eta is not similar to all the other neologisms though in that it is derived from the affix -et-. Eta is among some speakers (me included) smaller than "malgranda" even as small as "tiny".
This brings up the chilling possibility of maleta. Also, how do you get italics?
In order, from smallest to largest: eteta, eta, etega, maleteta, maletega, maleta, malgrandeta, malgrnadega, malgranda, granda, grandega... I forgot grandetega, and malgrandetega.
I don't understand why maleta is smaller than malgranda. And I also thought that Esperanto was supposed to be easy hahah
Haha I just started spanish and I thought of that because una maleta is a suitcase in spanish.
I assume that instead of "etajn arbojn", we could also just use one word, arbetojn?
In this case, perhaps yes, but in general, no, because -et- can form different words.
An "eta rido" is a small laugh but a "rideto" is a smile, for example.
Ne, tio estus "Reto". "Reta" estas "kiu havas econ de malgranda R".
(And I'm reminded of the sign I once saw: "Incorrigible punster. Do not incorrige.")
maybe a silly question, but why is it "the huge park.." instead of "the large park.."?
Because the park is not just grand'a "large" but grand'eg'a "huge" -- the -eg- intensifies the meaning.
I think large should be accepted because it is arguable that large is bigger than big so granda is big and grandega could be large. I am not saying huge is wrong but that large should be accepted also. The Oxford English Dictionary supports large meaning something of great size. I do not know if it is a case of British versus American semantics. I know Duolingo is put together in the USA. I, who live in UK, usually use large for very big things and I hear that more than I do huge. You let us Brits have chips instead of fries on Duolingo so perhaps we could have large meaning something very big, too.