How would one say "don't have to" in Esperanto?
LiamBeaman,2016年5月21日の
メッセージ: 52
言語: English
LiamBeaman (プロフィールを表示) 2016年5月23日 4:33:01
RiotNrrd:Ne necesas ke mi tion fari.I think that is one of the best answers I've recieved so far, thank you!
bryku (プロフィールを表示) 2016年5月23日 10:47:32
RiotNrrd:Ne necesas ke mi tion fari.Better esperanto: Ne necesas, ke mi tion faru.
Ne estas necese por mi tion fari.
Mi ne necesas fari tion.
Mi ne bezonas fari tion.
Mi ne havas bezonon/neceson fari tion.
Fari tion ne estas necese por mi
... x 1000 more and more
erinja (プロフィールを表示) 2016年5月23日 11:48:23
BUT "Mi ne devas" still means "I don't have to".
This is one of the relatively unusual cases where the Esperanto word order would be important to the translation.
Mi ne devas fari tion = I don't have to do that.
Mi devas ne fari tion = I must not do that.
"Ne" generally refers to the word coming after it (unless you're being especially poetic), therefore it can be used to add nuance or to change the meaning entirely, depending on the sentence and where you put the "ne".
Ne mi vidis tion = It wasn't me who saw that (someone else saw it, but not me)
Mi ne vidis tion = I didn't see that (I didn't *see* it, but there is a possibility that I smelled or touched it)
Mi vidis ne tion = I didn't see that (I definitely saw something, but not that)
sudanglo (プロフィールを表示) 2016年5月23日 13:39:49
"We use 'don't have to' (or 'haven't got to' in British English) to state that there is NO obligation or necessity."
•We don't have to get there on time. The boss is away today.
•I don't have to listen to this. I'm leaving.
•You don't have to come if you don't want to.
•He doesn't have to sign anything if he doesn't want to at this stage.
So sometimes you might like to use 'ne necesas ...', or you might like to express the absence of obligation by 'ne estas devigata ...', or with 'ne bezonas ...'.
You might in some cases prefer these possibilities to 'ne devas ..'
RiotNrrd (プロフィールを表示) 2016年5月23日 14:21:47
Fenris_kcf:Except for the fact that it should be "faras" (or maybe "faru" ), but not "fari".Correct. I meant to write faras, but my fingers typed fari, and I didn't notice. I blame my tablet. Yeah, that's right. It was the tablet.
Alkanadi (プロフィールを表示) 2016年5月23日 14:35:43
erinja:Ne mi vidis tion = It wasn't me who saw that (someone else saw it, but not me)I don't think that your translation is correct. I read somewhere that you can't omit the relative pronoun like we do in English.
Ne mi vidis tion = I didn't see that.
Ne mi, kiu vidis tion = It wasn't me who saw that.
PS. I found it. It was in Kellerman: "The relative pronoun is never thus omitted in Esperanto."
dbob (プロフィールを表示) 2016年5月23日 15:16:47
Alkanadi:I don't see anyone omitting anything here.erinja:Ne mi vidis tion = It wasn't me who saw that (someone else saw it, but not me)I don't think that your translation is correct. I read somewhere that you can't omit the relative pronoun like we do in English.
Alkanadi:Ne mi, kiu vidis tionIt should be: "Ne estas mi, kiu vidis tion", for example
Kellerman:Sometimes English uses “that” for a relative pronoun, as “I saw the book that you have.” This must always be translated by kiu. Likewise, English sometimes omits the relative pronoun, as “I saw the book you have.” The relative pronoun is never thus omitted in Esperanto.What has the above to do with this?
From Tekstaro:
[...] ne vi sendis min ĉi tien, sed Dio (Zamenhof)
Ne mi diras tion, sed la realeco mem (Lydia Zamenhof)
LiamBeaman (プロフィールを表示) 2016年5月23日 15:20:53
erinja:Interesting. I never knew that Esperanto could do that...
BUT "Mi ne devas" still means "I don't have to".
This is one of the relatively unusual cases where the Esperanto word order would be important to the translation.
Mi ne devas fari tion = I don't have to do that.
Mi devas ne fari tion = I must not do that.
Alkanadi (プロフィールを表示) 2016年5月23日 15:32:07
dbob:[...] ne vi sendis min ĉi tien, sed Dio (Zamenhof)ne vi sendis min = vi ne sendis min
Ne mi diras tion, sed la realeco mem (Lydia Zamenhof)
Ne mi diras tion = Mi ne diras tion
I think the relative pronoun is required to change the meaning.
Maybe Kellerman isn't the best source.