I would like to apologize to all who read this for my slaughtering of the Esperanto language, albeit unintentionally. I'm practicing my extremely limited skills in the hopes of someday not having to declare them extremely limited. lol So, in the name of progress, I present to you the hacked up version of Why Does The Sun Shine?

Kial Faras la Suno Brilas?
(La Suno Estas Amaso de Inkandeska Gaso)

de Lou Singer kaj Hy Zaret, 1959

La suno estas amaso de inkandeska gaso
Giganta nuklea forno
Tie kie hidrogeno al heliumigxas
Po temperaturo de milionoj de gradoj

La suno estas varmega, la suno ne estas
Loko kie ni povos logxas
Sed cxi tie en Tero vivon ne estas ebla
Sen la lumo gxis donas.

Ili bezonas gxies lumon, ili bezonas gxies varmegon
La sunbrilon tio ili sercxas.
La sunbrilo venas de la atoma energio
De nia suno

La suno estas amaso de inkandeska gaso
Giganta nuklea forno
Tie kie hidrogeno al heliumigxas
Po temperaturo de milionoj de gradoj

La suno estas varmega…

La suno estas varmega do tio cxio en gxi estas gasoj.
Aluminio, kupro, fero, kaj multe de aliaj

La suno estas granda…

Cxu la suno estis kava, milionoj Teroj juntos en gxi.
Kaj jam, gxi estas nur mezgranda stelo

La suno estas malproksima…

Cxirkaux 93.000.000 meloj for
Kaj tio estas kia gxi sxajnas do malgranda

Tamen ecx kiam gxi estas nevidata
La suno brilas dum nokto kaj tago

Ili bezonas gxies lumon, ili bezonas gxies varmegon
La sunbrilon tio ili sercxas.
La sunbrilo venas de la atoma energio
De nia suno

Sciencistoj malkovris tio la suno estas masxinego por frakasi atomoj
La varmigon kaj lumon de la suno okazigis de nukleaj reakcioj inter
Hidrogeno, nitrogeno, karbono, kaj helium

La suno estas amaso de inkandeska gaso
Giganta nuklea forno
Tie kie hidrogeno al heliumigxas
Po temperaturo de milionoj de gradoj



And the original:

Why Does The Sun Shine?
(The Sun is a Mass of Incandescent Gas)

by Lou Singer and Hy Zaret, 1959

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where Hydrogen is built into Helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees

The sun is hot, the sun is not
A place where we could live
But here on Earth there'd be no life
Without the light it gives

We need its light, we need its heat
The sun light that we seek
The sun light comes from our own sun's
Atomic energy

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where Hydrogen is built into Helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees

The sun is hot...

The sun is so hot that everything on it is a gas
Aluminum, Copper, Iron, and many others

The sun is large...

If the sun were hollow, a million Earth's would fit inside
And yet, it is only a middle size star

The sun is far away...

About 93,000,000 miles away
And that's why it looks so small

But even when it's out of sight
The sun shines night and day

We need its heat, we need its light
The sun light that we seek
The sun light comes from our own sun's
Atomic energy

Scientists have found that the sun is a huge atom smashing machine
The heat and light of the sun are caused by nuclear reactions between
Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon, and Helium

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
Where Hydrogen is built into Helium
At a temperature of millions of degrees

DesertNaiad:The sun is a mass of incandescent gas...

I was just listening to They Might Be Giants' version of this today!

mccambjd:
I was just listening to They Might Be Giants' version of this today!

I love They Might Be Giants! This is one of my favorite songs.

DesertNaiad:Kial Faras la Suno Brilas?

"Kial la suno brilas?"

The presence of "to do" is necessary in that sentence in English to compose a direct question. Esperanto doesn't need it, though.

Tie kie hidrogeno al heliumiĝas
Po temperaturo de milionoj de gradoj

I should have avoided altogether my auto-corrections between parenthesis, in my previous post In this context, "kie hidrogeno heliumiĝas" is perfectly okay as it is.

"po" is used when dividing a numerable amount of something. "mi donis al ili po du pomojn" = "I gave them two apples each".

"po" introduces the amount that should be multiplied with the number of recipients to get the grand total.

In that context I would suggest using "kun", "en" or "je" in place of "po".

Loko kie ni povos loĝas

"loĝi"

Sed ĉi tie en Tero vivon ne estas ebla
Sen la lumo ĝis donas.

"Sed ĉi tie sur la Tero vivo ne estus ebla (ne eblus) / sen la lumo kiun ĝi donas".

"vivo" is the subject of the first sentence, and therefore it must not get the accusative ending, which marks the direct object.

"ĝis" means "until" or "upto"; you want "ĝi" which means "it". (they are not related).

Also you need "kiu" between "sen la lumo" and "ĝi donas", to link the two sentences, because otherwise there would be no explicit relation between them. When I learned English I have been taught that the word "that" can be omitted in some cases. You can't do this in Esperanto.

Ili bezonas ĝies lumon, ili bezonas ĝies varmegon

"ĝian". "ĝi" (it) becomes "ĝia" (its, that is relative to it) and then "ĝian", to follow the noun according to its case.

Also I see that the original English has "we", so I would use "ni" in place of "ili".

La sunbrilon tio ili serĉas.

"La sunbrilo kiun ni serĉas"

btw, sunbrilo means "sunshine", perhaps "sunlumo" (or "suna lumo") could be used too, it depends on how marked the difference is in English between "sunshine" and "sunlight", and I admit that I don't really know.

La suno estas varmega do tio ĉio en ĝi estas gasoj.

Your sentence translates to "The sun is hot therefore that thing everything in it is gases".

"La suno estas tiom varma, ke ĉio sur ĝi estas gasa" or "...ke ĉio, kio estas sur ĝi, estas gasoj", or "...ke ĉio sur ĝi estas gasoj".

I used "sur" because the original version has "on".

Aluminio, kupro, fero, kaj multe de aliaj

"kaj multaj aliaj", "kaj multe da aliaj"

Ĉu la suno estis kava, milionoj Teroj juntos en ĝi.

"Se la suno estus kava, milionoj da Teroj trovus spacon en ĝi"

You use "ĉu" when you are introducing a question (direct or indirect); you use "se" when you are introducing an hypothesis.

Example:

Se estas io inter mi kaj vi, mi ne povas vidi.
If there's something between you and me, I cannot see. (my view is blocked).

Ĉu estas io inter mi kaj vi, mi ne povas vidi.
I can't see if (whether) there's something between you and me. (I have no idea).

"junti" means more or less "to join using a joint". dictionary.reference.com tells me that the verb "to joint" exists, too.

I can't think how to translate "to fit". Maybe a native speaker could help you. I tried to give my best guess.

Kaj jam, ĝi estas nur mezgranda stelo

"jam" means "already". I would use "tamen" in that context.

Ĉirkaŭ 93.000.000 meloj for
Kaj tio estas kia ĝi ŝajnas do malgranda

"mejloj";

"kial" (=why) instead of "kia" (=what kind of);

and "tiom malgranda" (or "tiel malgranda").

"Do" means "so" with the meaning of "therefore" (from french "donc").

Sciencistoj malkovris tio la suno estas maŝinego por frakasi atomoj

"atomojn" (direct object of "frakasi").

"malkovris ke".

"ke" is used to introduce what in my language would be called an object-sentence, that is a sentence that takes the place of a direct object. Example:

"I see you" = "mi vidas vin"

"you" is the direct object.

"I see that you are here" = "Mi vidas, ke vi estas ĉi tie".

"that you are here" is the direct object of the first sentence, but it is also a sentence by itself, with its own subject, verb, etc.

Another example:

"Ĉiuj scias tion" = Everyone knows that.

"Ĉiuj scias ke vi parolas esperanton" = Everyone knows that you speak Esperanto.

The two "that"s in these two sentences above play a very different role. You will have to learn to distinguish it clearly when translating.

La varmigon kaj lumon de la suno okazigis de nukleaj reakcioj inter
Hidrogeno, nitrogeno, karbono, kaj helium

"heliumo".

The original verb is "to be caused", passive. You can keep it passive, and you wouldn't have objects, or you can try to turn it into active. Let's see both approaches:

active: "varmon kaj lumon de la suno kaŭzas nukleaj reakcioj"

passive: "varmo kaj lumo de la suno kaŭziĝas (estas kaŭzitaj) de nukleaj reakcioj".

There is a difference between "kaŭziĝas" and "estas kaŭzitaj". The first form concentrates on the process of becoming, while the latter is more suited to indicate that someone is responsible for it. However it's subtle enough that you don't really need to worry about it right now. Even I don't, most of the times

You could use either form and continue with "inter hidrogeno, nitrogeno..." and they both would be correct.

Also you could use "sunaj varmo kaj lumo" (or "sunajn varmon kaj lumon", according to your choice), to make it a bit more elegant, but this is a matter of tastes and personal preference.

* * *

I am not used to correct in another language than my own, but I hope I could help you.

Just a couple of addenda to mnlg's corrections:

Ĉirkaŭ 93.000.000 meloj for

This should be "Ĉirkaŭ 93.000.000 mejlojn for". This is the -n ending used for expressing measure. In these cases - talking about time, a measure or a distance - you need to use either the -n ending, or add a preposition. So you could say either "ĉirkaŭ xyz mejlojn for" or else "je ĉirkaŭ xyz mejloj for"

Also, translation of "fit" - mnlg and I had a long conversation about this. We finally agreed upon "se la suno estus kava, milionoj da teroj teniĝus en ĝi". It isn't an exact translation, it literally means "...millions of Earths would be held in it". But without coming up with some fiendishly complex exact translation for "fit" (which has many meanings in English, so you can't come up with a good single-word Esperanto translation), I think it's nearly the best you can do.

mnlg:
Your sentence translates to "The sun is hot therefore that thing everything in it is gases".

*blushes* lol

mnlg:You use "ĉu" when you are introducing a question (direct or indirect); you use "se" when you are introducing an hypothesis.

Example:

Se estas io inter mi kaj vi, mi ne povas vidi.
If there's something between you and me, I cannot see. (my view is blocked).

Ĉu estas io inter mi kaj vi, mi ne povas vidi.
I can't see if (whether) there's something between you and me. (I have no idea).

So "se" is used in "if/than" statements, but the "than" can be implied, if I understand correctly. Can it also be stated?

mnlg:
and "tiom malgranda" (or "tiel malgranda").

I'm still having trouble with the korelativoj - does tiom malgranda have more a "small amount" meaning, and tiel malgranda mean more a "smallish" meaning? I don't understand "in the manner of being small" which is how tiel is described.

mnlg:
"ke" is used to introduce what in my language would be called an object-sentence, that is a sentence that takes the place of a direct object. Example:

"I see you" = "mi vidas vin"

"you" is the direct object.

"I see that you are here" = "Mi vidas, ke vi estas ĉi tie".

"that you are here" is the direct object of the first sentence, but it is also a sentence by itself, with its own subject, verb, etc.

Another example:

"Ĉiuj scias tion" = Everyone knows that.

"Ĉiuj scias ke vi parolas esperanton" = Everyone knows that you speak Esperanto.

The two "that"s in these two sentences above play a very different role. You will have to learn to distinguish it clearly when translating.

That explains part of why I can't find the direct object sometimes! The examples in my (still beginning) lessons are usually pretty straight forward, like "La knabo vidas la hundon" and even I can find those, though I still forget to look too often. Thank you. So in "Ĉiuj scias ke vi parolas esperanton" esperanto gets the -n because it's the direct object in "Vi parolas esperanton", right? Not because of the first half of the sentence at all.

mnlg:
I am not used to correct in another language than my own, but I hope I could help you.

You did a fantastic job correcting my work! *beams at you happily* And you pointed out not only things I knew, and made mistakes on, but a lot of things that I simply didn't know in the first place. I made so many errors, but honestly, I expected it to be much worse than it was. There were entire sentences that I actually got right! lol I thank both you and erinja most heartily for your help! Here's my corrected version. Let's see where I goofed up a second time... >.>

Kial La Suno Brilas?
(La Suno Estas Amaso de Inkandeska Gaso)

de Lou Singer kaj Hy Zaret, 1959

La suno estas amaso de inkandeska gaso
Giganta nuklea forno
Kie hidrogeno heliumigxas
Kun temperaturo de milionoj de gradoj

La suno estas varmega, la suno ne estas
Loko kie ni povos logxi
Sed cxi tie sur la Tero vivo ne eblus
Sen la lumo kiun gxi donas

Ni bezonas gxian lumon, Ni bezonas gxian varmegon
La sunba lumo kiun ni sercxas.
La sunbrilo venas de la atoma energio
De nia suno

La suno estas amaso de inkandeska gaso
Giganta nuklea forno
Kie hidrogeno heliumigxas
Kun temperaturo de milionoj de gradoj

La suno estas tiom varma…

La suno estas tiom varma ke cxio sur gxi estas gasoj
Aluminio, kupro, fero, kaj multaj aliaj

La suno estas granda…

se la suno estus kava, milionoj da teroj tenigxus en gxi
Kaj tamen, gxi estas nur mezgranda stelo

La suno estas malproksima…

Cxirkaux 93.000.000 mejlojn for
Kaj tio estas kial gxi sxajnas tiel malgranda

Tamen ecx kiam gxi estas nevidata
La suno brilas dum nokto kaj tago

Ili bezonas gxies lumon, ili bezonas gxies varmegon
La sunbrilon tio ili sercxas.
La sunbrilo venas de la atoma energio
De nia suno

Sciencistoj malkovris ke tio la suno estas masxinego por frakasi atomojn
Varmo kaj lumo de la suno kauxzigxas de nukleaj reakcioj inter
Hidrogeno, nitrogeno, karbono, kaj heliumo

La suno estas amaso de inkandeska gaso
Giganta nuklea forno
Kie hidrogeno heliumigxas
Kun temperaturo de milionoj de gradoj

DesertNaiad:So in "Ĉiuj scias ke vi parolas esperanton" esperanto gets the -n because it's the direct object in "Vi parolas esperanton", right? Not because of the first half of the sentence at all.

Yes, that's exactly right.

Since "ke" introduces a direct object, it's never necessary to mark the following with an -n, because what follows will always be the direct object. Besides, you can't mark a whole phrase with the -n. However, if a phrase follows "ke", then that phrase must follow sentence construction rules itself, and it may have a direct object of its own. In that case, its direct object needs to be marked (unless it also contains "ke", which certainly does happen).

"Mi scias ke li scias ke ŝi scias ke mi ne scias tiun."

"I know that he knows that she knows that I don't know that." "Tiu" is the only word in that sentence that actually will take the -n.

Note that "tiu" also means "that", but in a completely different way than "ke" does. "Tiu" in the above stands in for some THING (in this case, the thing I don't know), whereas "ke" is simply introducing a new phrase (of which there are quite a few in that sentence). Typically each phrase would be set off by a comma, although I didn't do so in the above example.

English overloads the word "that" so it can perform several different functions. In Esperanto there is no such overload, and we actually use different words for the different functions. This can be confusing for an English speaker new to Esperanto, who is used to using the same word for both functions.

Hi, thanks for your reply!

So "se" is used in "if/than" statements, but the "than" can be implied, if I understand correctly. Can it also be stated?

I would never imply that I want to correct a native speaker, but I believe you mean "if/then". And yes, it can be stated:

Se vi vere volas, do, bone, ni iru.
If you really want [to], then, okay, let's go.

I'm still having trouble with the korelativoj - does tiom malgranda have more a "small amount" meaning, and tiel malgranda mean more a "smallish" meaning? I don't understand "in the manner of being small" which is how tiel is described.

Nuances. I will try my best to give you a clear example.

"Ĝi estis tiom malgranda, ke ..." = "It was so small, that..."

(Literally it would be "It was small in such a quantity, that...", but I believe this looks very ugly at best).

"Ĝi estis tiel malgranda, ke ..." = "It was small in such a way, that ..."

That explains part of why I can't find the direct object sometimes! The examples in my (still beginning) lessons are usually pretty straight forward, like "La knabo vidas la hundon" and even I can find those, though I still forget to look too often. Thank you.

You are welcome. I offer a few tips to my students to help them on this, but unfortunately those tips wouldn't work for an English speaker.

So in "Ĉiuj scias ke vi parolas esperanton" esperanto gets the -n because it's the direct object in "Vi parolas esperanton", right? Not because of the first half of the sentence at all.

Precisely!

What you have essentially is a sentence with a sub-sentence. The verbs of both sentences have an object. The object of the verb of the main sentence, though, is not a noun, but a whole sentence. Object sentences do not get a -n ending on top of their own (for obvious reasons), and they are introduced with "ke".

Incidentally "ke" also introduces subject-sentences (subjective sentences?), that is, sentences working as the subject of another sentence. Example:

"Plaĉas al mi, ke vi helpis min."

"[The fact] That you have helped me, is pleasing to me."

(The subject of "plaĉas" is "ke vi helpis min").

To make it flow better in English, you would normally translate that with "I appreciate that you've helped me", even though in this form the subject would be "I" and the object would be a sentence, so it wouldn't adhere structurally to the Esperanto version (and it doesn't have to, of course; I am merely pointing that out to help you understand the differences).

You did a fantastic job correcting my work!

I'm pleased. Thanks.

I made so many errors, but honestly, I expected it to be much worse than it was.

You should read what I used to write as I finished my course, 11 years ago... then again, you shouldn't

La sunba lumo kiun ni serĉas.

(suna)

Ili bezonas ĝies lumon, ili bezonas ĝies varmegon
La sunbrilon tio ili serĉas.

I think you didn't revise these two verses.

Sciencistoj malkovris ke tio la suno estas maŝinego por frakasi atomojn

You have to remove the "tio" from this one. It literally translates to "Scientists discovered that that thing the sun..."

Other from that, it looks fine; congratulations!

Maybe you should contact the group and ask if they would be willing to sing it for you with your new lyrics.

Regarding "tiom" and "tiel" - it has been my understanding that "tiom" is more emphatic, in the cases when you can use either.

La meleagro estis tiel granda, ke ĝi ne povis eniri la fornon.

= The turkey was so big that it couldn't go into the oven.

---vs---

La meleagro estis tiom granda, ke ĝi ne povis eniri la fornon.

= The turkey was soooo big that it couldn't go into the oven!

RiotNrrd:"Mi scias ke li scias ke ŝi scias ke mi ne scias tiun."

"Tiu" in the above stands in for some THING (in this case, the thing I don't know)

Just a small note on an otherwise very good explanation, to point out that "tiu" is used to specificate/locate an individual (person or item), either a member of a generally homogeneous group, or a human being (when there is no explicit group stated, the default is mankind), so that in your sentence above I would instinctly translate with "I know that he knows that she knows that I don't know that one".

To translate "that thing" I would normally use "tio".