30 Comments
would not it be even more awesome if the answer links to a grammar or declination or proverbs' section /of duolingo or its FAQ/
You can go up on this page on the web version and click on each word for more information.
No I think the phrase is supposed to mean that the fish is a part of the lunch not the whole lunch. "At lunch, we eat fish" vs. "We eat fish for lunch"
Se você tivesse algum link para gente poder confirma a sua afirmação, ela, com certeza, ficaria ainda mais interessante.
Can someone explain "no" here? Is this simply the preposition "at" or is this a mashup of words or contraction?
So why is "We eat fish at the lunch." wrong here? I know it sounds a bit unnatural, but it's the literal translation, right?
2172
It is the literal translation, and in this case, I'm not sure if it's actually wrong although "the lunch" sounds like an event rather than a regular lunch. But going by the literal translation is never a good idea because that's just not how languages work.
it seems like most times the article is included before almoco, but the translation is usually just lunch, not "the lunch" same with jantar. dinner, not "the dinner"
Does this sentence mean lunch in general in Brazil or the specific one when we ate fish?
- 592
Hi. What is the difference between "no almoço" and "para o almoço"?
I just learnt sentence: "O queijo é para o almoço." The cheese is for lunch.
Link as following: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/3037320
Good question! We need an expert to answer this one. I know from my exposure to Portuguese that 'ao' doesn't sound right. But I can't explain why.
In European Portuguese based on my text book you can indeed say "ao" to mean lunch in general. (I believe here it is meant for a specific lunch not any lunch, and it's the English translation that lost the subtlety confusing some of us.) Not sure if this is true for BP. We need natives to confirm either cases. Thanks
That sounds like that is all you had for lunch. " At lunch, we eat fish." indicates that there are also other things for lunch.
- 2172
"Nós" is the personal pronoun equivalent to "we". "Nos" is the oblique form, equivalent to "us", although there are a few exceptions, like the colloquial expression "us too" which is translated to "nós também". But oblique pronouns never appear as the subject of a sentence.
A sample sentence would be "Nós comemos peixe" (We ate fish) vs. "O peixe nos comeu" (The fish ate us).
Shouldn't "We eat fish at the lunch" work as well. It would be less used, but refer to a special event lunch.
Yes. These difference between "em" and "no" is so difficult to understand as the "at, in, on" for us, non-english speakers
Can we say eu como peixe PELO almoço instead of NO? is there a difference or can we use both?
The preposition is for. We eat or have fish for lunch. Someone eats or has a food or drink for a meal.
You can also eat something at lunch and it is not necessarily the main part of that lunch. If I say I eat fish for lunch, then that was the main food that made up my lunch. If you ask when did you eat fish, I would say I ate fish at lunch. If you ask what did you eat at lunch, I might say "I had fish for lunch." if that were the main thing that I had, or if I was at a buffet and I ate fish, but also many other things, than I might say "I ate fish at lunch." then I would tell you the other things that I ate.
