It is correct and colloquial for English speakers to say, "We eat fish for lunch." In terms of translation, this translates from Spanish to English with the fewest words. It is equally good to say "We eat fish at lunchtime." In fact, English speakers use both translations equally.
No, it is not OK. you can not use the preposition "Por" in this sentence
"Por" la palabra almuerzo entendemos que se trata de una comida al mediodia o primeras horas de la tarde y también en algunas regiones de España una comida que se toma por la mañana y que podria ser un desayuno o un desayuno mas contundente
By the word lunch we understand that it is a lunch at noon or early afternoon and also in some regions of Spain a meal that is taken in the morning and that could be a breakfast or a more forceful breakfast.
Yo como pescado en el almuerzo/ or la comida.
"Comemos pescado en el almuerzo". ... is what I got as correct... though I would argue endlessly as to its ridiculous grammatical usage. I don't know anyone who speaks this way. We eat fish in the lunch. Really? This does not sound like common spanish usage either. We eat fish (for, at, with.. etc.) lunch... or we eat fish IN (tacos, sandwich, soup, etc) I know Spanish grammar is different, but this usage does not sound correct, certainly not common.
"en almuerzo" is not true because the rules for adding the definite articles in Spanish are somewhat different than English. The link can be helpful http://spanish.about.com/od/adjectives/a/intro_def_art.htm
These dictionaries will help: http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/en http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=en
(for those of you who do not know) there is no commonly used translation(in English) for 'Comemos pescado en el almuerzo', but the closest one would be 'we eat fish in the lunch' or 'we eat fish at lunchtime'. Duo is trying to make this easier for us to understand be changing the translation a bit. It's good to remember that every language is different, and usually there is no perfect English translation.
Or, a good translation is "for lunch". Seems to me that is a "perfectly good" translation. See this dictionary reference. http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=en
"En" can mean: for,
by, before the end of (time).
In English, the preposition "at" refers to a time or a place. When the object of the preposition (the noun "lunch") is changed to a compound noun ("lunchtime"), the compound noun indicates both what is eaten ("lunch") and when it is eaten ("time"). The object of the preposition then meets a requirement of using the pronoun "at." That is, the prepositional phrase tells "when." The phrase also tells what. Telling "what" is essential, since a preposition must have as an object some part of speech used as a noun.
That's really not okay though. Teaching idioms is fine; but you can't ask students to translate the literal words that make them up into another language and expect it to make sense. In this case a literal translation of the phrase is being counted as incorrect; while the idiomatic translation has never been taught.
Sometimes, the "literal" translation is not a good translation. Por ejemplo, "me gustan los gatos" is literally, "Cats are liked by me." But the correct translation is "I like cats."
"Cómo se llama" is "literally" "how are you called" . But it means, and should be translated as "What is your name.:
Often DUO accepts the literal translation. But sometimes it rightly rejects a "literal" translation because it results in bad English.
It is important to remember that, with every lesson, we are shown new things. Rather than complain, I try to learn.
If I get it wrong, I try to find out why it is wrong, and why the right answer is right. I do this by reading these commentaries and researching on-line, and saving the results of my researches.
I certainly don't expect DUO to do all the work for me. And if I find a mistake, I report it, and by doing that I learn.
+++++++++++++ Espanol, bajo
A veces, la traducción "literal" no es una buena traducción. Por ejemplo, "me gustan los gatos" es, literalmente, "Cats are liked by me". Pero la traducción correcta es "I like cats".
"Cómo se llama" es "literalmente" "how are you called." . Pero significa, y debe traducirse como " "¿What is your name?"
A menudo DUO acepta la traducción literal. Pero a veces rechaza correctamente una traducción "literal" porque resulta un mal inglés.
Es importante recordar que, con cada lección, se nos muestran cosas nuevas. En lugar de quejarme, trato de aprender.
Si me equivoco, trato de averiguar por qué está mal y por qué la respuesta correcta es la correcta. Hago esto por leer estos comentarios e investigar en línea, y yo salvo los resultados de mis investigaciones.
Ciertamente no conto con que DUO haga todo el trabajo por mí. Y si encuentro un error, lo informo, y por hacerlo, aprendo.
No. See my comment above or this: http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=en
I have used "ate" and it should be considered 'cause "comemos" is also the past form. "Comemos pescado en el almuerzo" can mean: - We eat fish at lunch (common action) - We ate fish at lunch (action that occurred at the last lunch)
Am I wrong? [i'm not a native english speaker]
In English, the article is often omitted with abstract nouns and nouns that refer more to a concept than a tangible item. But it still is needed in Spanish. A few examples might help clarify: La ciencia es importante. (Science is important.) Creo en la justicia. (I believe in justice.) Estudio la literatura. (I study literature.) La primavera es bella. (Spring is beautiful.)
There are 6 ways to use ¨en¨. http://spanish.about.com/od/prepositions/a/preposition_en.html
this website shows each way with examples. i hope it helps all of you too
It's interesting to me that there's no discussion here about the absence of the definite article before pescado.
The general rules is that the definite article should be used before general nouns:
"The article is required with generic nouns: These are nouns that refer to a concept or to a substance in general or a member of a class in general, rather than a specific one (where the article would be required in both languages)."
I suppose the answer is that, although the English sounds like it's talking about fish in general, it's actually talking about a very limited amount of fish. In French, one would say du poisson = "some fish", so it seems like, if you could say "we are eating [some] fish at lunch" then it's OK to omit the definite article in Spanish, even though you're talking about fish in general.
We have fish for lunch. Accepted. 04/15/2018.
It's a delexical structure.
I don't know why you put the sentence in Spanish If it was a dictation the voice says pescado so you must write "pescado".
In Spanish is not usual to say "comer pescados" sound really weird, the only situation to say it is to eat different kind of fish in a dish and even in that situation most of us will say "comer pescado". Personally if I want to specify I would say "he comido distintos/varios pescados"
The same rule holds in English. Native English speakers never say"fishes" unless they are referring to "all the fishes of the ocean." To use "fishes" is to expect your listener to understand that you speak of every fish species or of every fish that exists. What this means is that when you speak of fish as singular, you say "I ate a fish." When you speak of fish as plural, you say, "The fishermen caught many fish."
"During" is an acceptable, less known preposition that is in "ing" form. What this means is that you are eating (plural present progressive tense) either continuously or continually during the meal.
There is a slight shade of difference between the words "continuous" and "continual." "Continuous" means "with no interruptions." "Continual" means "for long periods of time with periodic interruptions." For more information on this subtle distinction:
Your question has a lot of different answers, but in general, when I have to guess which one to use, I insert the phrase "in order to" or "to enable me/you/her to" in some form or another into a sentence, and if it works, then I use para.
I also try something like "in exchange for" or "per/for/at the rate of", and then I use por. It's more of a comparison than an enabling of something. If you remember that "Percent" in Spanish is por ciento = "for each 100" or "per 100", then it helps figure out what por is used for.
"one dollar for each box" = un dólar por cada caja - there's a concept of exchange in this sentence. You hand over the dollar and get a box in exchange, at the rate of one box per dollar.
"one ticket for each patron" = un billete para cada cliente. There's no exchange here - you don't turn in the ticket and get a patron in return. The ticket enables the patron to do something - it's more complex than a simple exchange.
My question was to translate 'Comemos pescado en el almuerzo', is this gramatically correct? Is there also other ways to say 'We eat fish for lunch' other than the above answer.
I think I'm mainly confused about the 'en el', I know en can have many translations, but why is the el necessary?
They( Duolingo) does eventually fix problems. I used to work on my Spanish studies for hours all day long and then they would switch over for a new day between one thirty and two thirty in the middle of the night( a. m. ) Then I got up at 7:00 a. m. my days of doing the language would go back to zero and start me back ar zero days. Right now I am around 39 days straight working on the language without missing a day. I am so glad this problem was corrected.