Al la enhavo
Respondi

Translation help

de Mysystemlater, 2015-septembro-30

Mesaĝoj: 7

Lingvo: English

Mysystemlater (Montri la profilon) 2015-septembro-30 02:22:05

I came across this website describing the grammatical rules of Esperanto, and the first example seems a bit off to me.
1. There is no indefinite ARTICLE [English a, an]; there is only a definite article la, alike for all genders, cases and numbers [English the].
Author's note: The use of the article is as in other languages. People for whom use of the article offers difficulties [e.g. speakers of Russian, Chinese, etc.]may at first elect not to use it at all.

EXAMPLE
libro = book, a book
la libro = the book
The main difference between the use of the definite article in
Esperanto and in English is that in Esperanto the article, with
a singular noun, may be used to indicate an entire class.
EXAMPLE
la leono estas danĝera besto = lions are dangerous animals
wouldn't the example translate to "The lion is a dangerous animal"?
"The lion" would still be considered as a class of things and it would preserve the singular noun "besto" rather than translating it to "animals" appopritae

Miland (Montri la profilon) 2015-septembro-30 07:28:02

Common ways of saying things in one language are not always literally translated into another. In English we might say "Congratulations" but in Esperanto you will often find Gratulon.

tommjames (Montri la profilon) 2015-septembro-30 08:41:13

Mysystemlater:wouldn't the example translate to "The lion is a dangerous animal"?
It could translate that way, since in English the definite article can be used to show a whole class of things rather than specific things. But the plural "lions are.." phrase is also correct, as well as clearer, so that is the preferable translation.

Vestitor (Montri la profilon) 2015-septembro-30 10:13:26

Much like: 'The Rhino is an endangered species..'

Which is not referring to one rhino, but all rhinos.

Tempodivalse (Montri la profilon) 2015-septembro-30 13:36:01

The article in Esperanto is often used the "Continental" (i.e. French) way, meaning that you use it with general concepts or abstractions - li studas la filozofion, vivi por la arto, whereas in English you would usually omit the article unless you were talking about a specific segment of the concept - "the philosophy of Schopenhauer," but "he studies philosophy (as a discipline)".

In practice, use of the Esperanto article varies from speaker to speaker, no doubt thanks to the vagueness of the Fundamenta Gramatiko. If you use the article as in English, most of the time there will be no difficulty.

devilyoudont (Montri la profilon) 2015-oktobro-06 16:01:27

I think the two phrases are both valid in English but are in different registers.

Specifically I think "The lion is a dangerous animal" feels like a formal/written sentence to me (and this may account for the google results skewing higher for this, as the internet is a written medium.

"Lions are dangerous animals" feels like a phrase I would hear from some kind of zoo worker...

I feel like the phrase would change again if we were just naturally talking about some kind of mauling in a bar: "Man, lions are dangerous..." sort of thing

eshapard (Montri la profilon) 2015-oktobro-15 21:50:38

Mysystemlater:
EXAMPLE
la leono estas danĝera besto = lions are dangerous animals

wouldn't the example translate to "The lion is a dangerous animal"?

"The lion" would still be considered as a class of things and it would preserve the singular noun "besto" rather than translating it to "animals" appopritae
[/quote]Hmm... at first I though you were asking which meaning "la leono estas danĝera besto" denotes. i.e. the [single] lion is dangerous vs lions as a group are dangerous.

But then you seem to accept that the Esperanto sentence refers to lions as a group/class when you say that '"The lion" would still be considered as a class of things...'.

I'm not sure why you came to that conclusion.

Tempo probably best addressed your question by letting you know that (as in English), saying "la leono" can refer to either the [single] lion, or all lions taken as a class.

But without any context, it's (as in English) not clear which meaning the author intends.

Without knowing which meaning the author intends, it's probably best to use the translation the preserves the ambiguity: The lion is a dangerous beast.

But once you decide that 'la leono' means 'lions', I don't see how it matters much one way or the other which translation you choose.

Personally, I'd go for the straight-forward, unambiguous "lions are dangerous".

Reen al la supro