If Duo said that, leavitt82, Duo is being funny again. For one thing, standard English puts "still" between "is" and "not," but that is a much different meaning from the consensus translations such as "This term is not used any more." Duo's sentence means that the term has never been used up to and including the present moment, while the sentence just given means that the term was formerly used.
I see your point, Duo gave me two correct answers, one of which is what they wanted to convey in the first place. 'this term is no longer used'. However the second one 'this term is not used still' conveys, as you have said, 'this term is not used still' has the connotation of it never has been used. I got it wrong by using 'much' but that's ok. I am learning I am going to report the 'funny one. haha Thank you.
Yep, you can. It's chiefly Nth American English (which DL uses) but you will find it in the OED as an alternative spelling for "any more." Incidentally, some people/places use "anymore" as an adverb, meaning "any longer," but "any more" as an adverb+adjective combo eg "I don't want any more food" or an adjective+noun combo eg "I don't want any more." All that said, both "anymore" and "any more" should be accepted in this sentence.
For furthermore clarification on when to use "anymore" and "any more," see this link: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/anymore-vs-any-more/
This link is interesting because it discusses how "nowadays" is sometimes used as a synonym of "anymore." Using the "nowadays" interpretation, "Este término no se usa más" could be translated as "This term is not used nowadays."
My ignorance centers here on "se usa" I don't know what words or forms of words these are from, since I know se as a form of saber and the needed form of usar would seem to me to be usado. This feels strange to me at my point of study, not so advanced but these are such simple words, seemingly.
I have never found ONE resource that has all the se uses. Here is a list of different SE uses and specific links to each use.
1. reflexive se
2. se to imply a change of meaning
http://www.spanishdict.com/topics/show/85 (scroll down to meaning changes)
http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/reflexive2.htm (scroll down to meaning changes)
3. reciprocal se (each other)
4. Indirect object se (when using an indirect object and direct object together)
5. passive se
6. impersonal se
7. accidental se (no fault)
8. sé (conjugation of saber-first person singular present)
9. sé (conjugation of ser-second person informal imperative)
Good effort MissSpell - if someone with some spare time could collate, combine and compress all that it would be great :) I think "se" is one word DL does not focus enough on - when you read the discussions in the reverse course they are littered with "se." According to this http://www.vistawide.com/spanish/top_100_spanish_words.htm it is the 9th most common Spanish word. Unfortunately it also seems to be one of the most complex. Maybe DL just put it in the too hard basket, but it would be good if they could add an exclusive exercise on it, or at least include more examples of it in the other lessons.
Thank you jellonz
I would love for DL to make se its own skill, including all its uses. I have to say, in the spanish classes i've taken and spanish grammar books I own, there is not one comprehensive list for se uses. Anything that has come close didn't have helpful explanations for the various uses. So it's not just DL who has put se in the 'too hard' basket. I've only compiled this list for my own sanity.
I promise, in the unlikely event that i master spanish, i will create a perfect and comprehensive se lesson. (return in 20 years)
Your link just describes standard use of reflexive verbs, which confused me as the English translation of this is not reflexive. I then found the following link, which gives a much better description of use of 'se' in this context where a reflexive is being used as a substitute for the passive voice (apparently it is 'true passive' not 'false passive' as rspreng suggested). http://books.google.ca/books?id=qUAIwYeceUcC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=false+passive+spanish&source=bl&ots=TbmFK0a7Ut&sig=Ea6QRyWOrh81LUwODz3VQZgUu7k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=siDYUp-BM4b6kQfVyIGoAQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=false%20passive%20spanish&f=false
These terms can really get confusing. Here's my take:
True Passive: The door was closed [by the police]. True passive is used to describe an action itself without expressing the doer (or agent) of the action. In Spanish this is very similar to English: La puerta fue cerrada [por la policía].
Passive Se: Se can be used to describe an action itself without expressing the agent. This form is much more common than true passive. For example: Se cerró la puerta. Of course this does not translate literally into English, but means The door was closed [by someone/something].
False Passive: The door was closed. In English, this sentence can also be interpreted as describing an attribute of the door (rather than the action on the door). For example, when answering the question, Can you describe the door?, you could say, The door was closed/wooden/red. Think of the closed as an adjective rather than a verb. Although it sounds like passive voice, it isn't (so false passive). In Spanish, this is expressed differently than is true passive, using estar instead of ser: La puerta estaba cerrada.
Impersonal se would translate to One no longer uses this term, and that sounds quite unnatural and overly formal in English. I believe the use of se in this example is instead passive voice (where no agent of action is expressed): This term is no longer used.
Differentiating the use of impersonal se from passive se is tricky. The big clue is that impersonal se never takes a direct object. With este término no se usa, término is a direct object of usa, so this sentence can't be impersonal.
In general, impersonal se accepts intransitive verbs or transitive verbs without a direct object, whereas passive se accepts only transitive verbs with direct objects. In short, if se + verb has a direct object then it is passive, and if there is no direct object, then is it impersonal.
I received 2 emails on March 20 (2 weeks ago) that DL had accepted two of my suggested translations. So, yes, they do read and act on the reports.
Also, DL staff had indicated that they do not generally read the comment sections, so if you report an problem here, it will likely not be seen (or corrected).
That's very interesting. I've reported several very obvious translations and never received an email either either accepting or rejecting my suggestions. They are programmers. It should be easy to automate the process. They get the suggestion and click "accept" or reject" and an email gets sent. But I've never received anything or seen any changes made, either from my suggestions or others.
I have had loads of emails accepting my alternative translations, but then again I've made loads of suggestions. Generally they take a while to come through so have patience. They are paying attention and continously improving. It must not be easy for them to programme all possible permutations.
I've reported all kinds of things and only received one email telling me my translation was accepted. I am fairly new but I'm positive that more than that were correct. I agree that even if your translation isn't accepted, they could send an email letting you know it had been reviewed.
No, it's "este" because that is the masculine form of the demonstrative adjective, which is needed when modifying "término".
In an otherwise fairly logical language Spanish makes a meal of demonstratives. "Esto" exists as a demonstrative pronoun, but not as a demonstrative adjective, and "este" becomes "estos" in plural etc. Also there's the tilde issue, which used to be compulsory for the pronouns, but no longer is. Anyway, here's the full breakdown (M=masculine, F=feminine, N=neuter, S=singular, P=plural):
This: MS - este; FS - esta; MP - estos; FP - estas
That: MS - ese; FS - esa; MP - esos; FP - esas
That (over there): MS - aquel; FS - aquella; MP - aquellos; FP - aquellas
Note there is no neuter demonstrative adjective as adjectives will always be modifying a noun, which will be masculine or feminine.
This: MS - este; FS - esta; NS - esto; MP - estos; FP - estas
That: MS - ese; FS - esa; NS - eso; MP - esos; FP - esas
That (over there): MS - aquel; FS - aquella; NS - aquello; MP - aquellos; FP - aquellas
Note that the neuter pronouns are used to substitute for a concept or an action, not for gendered nouns. As such they only exist in singular form.
Note also that the neuter pronouns don't take a tilde. The tilde is optional for all other pronouns. If used it is placed on the natural stress, which in these cases is always the first "e": éste, aquéllas etc. Demonstrative pronouns always used to take the stress mark to differentiate them from adjectives, but now the RAE advises that the stress mark is only necessary if ambiguity exists.
¡Hola Roger & jellonz! Your disagreement brought back some memories to me. When I worked as a proofreader, I remarked to some colleagues about the similarity between English progressive voice (is/are + present participle) and the "is/are" + predicate adjective construction. For example, "The door is opened" and "The door is open."
I was promptly told that the participle cannot be a verb complement (aka predicate adjective) because it is already part of a compound verb. And they were right, in terms of how these things are labelled in English grammar. But I was right, too, in the respect that both past and present participles can be used as adjectives: the running man, the fallen tree, etc. My point is that these grammatical labels and descriptions are used to explain the syntax of a specific sentence, not always to define it in one, and only one, way. Sometimes it's useful to be able to parse a sentence in various ways. Spanish rules of grammar, in fact, do consider participles to be acting as adjectives when they are in the predicate complement position, at least that's what I read somewhere.
This being said, my first instinct is to call this example a passive voice sentence. On the other hand, for the sake of discussion, there might be occasions when it is necessary to define the sentence as having a present progressive verb, and such verbs are, at least in some languages, considered to be active verbs. Quite simply, there's more than one way to skin a mango!
Usar is a transitive verb, which means it takes an object: X usa Y = X uses Y.
When no obvious object exists the verb can still be used in its pronominal form to reflect the action back on the subject: X se usa = X is used.
An alternative is the Spanish passive voice formed by using "ser + past participle": X es usado = X is used.
Note that although there is a difference in Spanish, there is none in English. Passive is passive.
The difference in Spanish (I'm 90% on this so invite comments) is that their true passive is generally only used when the "doer" is mentioned (or known through context). If not, then the pronominal form would be preferred. So: X es usado por Y = X is used by Y. But: X se usa (is more normal than) X es usado.
What about X está usado por Y?
That wouldn't work, at least not in the way I think it was intended. The passive voice requires "ser" plus the past participle.
You can use "estar" with past participles to describe something's condition: La puerta está cerrada = The door is closed. But this is using the past participle as an adjective to describe the state of the door.
So "X está usado" would mean "X is secondhand." I guess you could translate "por" as a preposition of position, but it would result in an odd sentence in both languages I think :) Maybe "por" as a cause would work, I'm not sure, but the resulting translation would be: "X is secondhand because of Y."
Not so far off Debusscs. If you were trying to express a physical end these words may be more common: final; extremo; ❤❤❤❤❤; límite. I think "término" is most often used to represent a temporal end, which wouldn't really work in your sentence, but it can also express a spacial end, so it should still be acceptable.
The real problem is your introduction of "can't." It is not present in the Spanish version, which just translates as "is not" not "cannot." For that maybe: Este término no puede usarse más / Este término no se puede usar más.
In this context. You can't always use a word-for-word translation. The best direct translation I can come up with is, "This term is no more used". Of course, this is not how we would say this in English, so you have to tweak the translation a bit to make it sound more natural.
The best way to do this is to say, "This term is no longer used":
So, it's not that 'mas' translates to 'longer', but that the translation itself has to be changed to sound like what someone may actually say.