I think you are correct. I only learned this after reading the first discussion on the main page of this lesson (http://www.duolingo.com/comment/5535?from_skill=bfc1431303748afe15cccf7c79d2f8b8). Duolingo used to accept only "We don't talk to just anyone", and reject "We don't talk to anyone", but I guess since so many reported it, they now accept the less correct translation.
Ugh, that's bad. It's totally wrong. If you want to say you didn't talk to anybody -- i.e. that you talked to not a single person -- you need nadie.
I think actually in colloquial speech, the way many younger English speakers would express this sentence is, "We didn't talk to whoever," putting stress on the word and rolling their eyes to indicate contempt for the unwashed masses. :-)
Like, we were at the club and we were having fun, but then these jerks who were not EVEN in our league tried to hit on us, and we were like, "Helloooo, we don't talk to WHOEVER, get lost!"
edit: Alano0 is totally right, it should technically be "whomever". Although, I was talking about how certain groups of younger people would speak, and I suspect they don't use "whom" in the rigorously correct fashion, in their idiomatic speech. ;-)
whomever does not exist according to my old Penguin Dictionary. Whoever is not accepted by the Owl, grammatically wrong I think. WHOMSOEVER exists according to my Penguin and was accepted by the Owl. Birds understand each other. Neither English nor Spanish is my language. With the Owl I learn both at the same time.
You can check the discussion, but if it looks like you are right, and you are, X out of the discussion, click report a problem, and check "my translation should be accepted". If I'm not 100% certain, I check comments and put "I think". But I do not know how to return to an exercise after clicking done.
"hablar con" is a compound form that means "to talk to" or "to talk with" so that's why 'con' was used. It's just one of those phrases you have to learn. There is no "a" because they don't double up on prepositions. Prepositions, for me, are probably one of the most difficult things to learn because they rarely correspond directly with English prepositions.
The personal "a" is only used with noun phrases representing persons (or things that get treated as persons, like sometimes pets), when those noun phrases are the object of the verb. As soon as you find a preposition intervening, you do not need the personal "a"; the noun phrase is now the object of the preposition, not the verb, and the prepositional phrase as a whole modifies the verb.
Drawing proper syntax trees for Spanish sentences can get extremely confusing sometimes, because "a" is also a preposition. So there are places where it's ambiguous whether you should think of "[verb] a [person]" as being equivalent to "[verb] modified by the prepositional phrase [to person]"; or, "[transitive verb] [with object person]". Fortunately, you don't have to properly diagram a sentence in order to translate it competently. :-)
You're right. My old head keeps coming up with the Latin (habemus) instead of the Spanish. Latin has been in there for 60 years, Spanish for 50 weeks -or less. Also I have just been struggling with the Present Perfect in Portuguese-β : "Temos falado" means "We have been talking".
@maxinedev. Actually, "chau" is a word. It's the equivalent of "ciao" in Spanish. However, it's more commonly spelled "chao" in Spanish, even so, some countries use the spelling "chau". http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/chau http://www.spanishdict.com/answers/170912/what-does-chao-mean-in-spanish
If you go back, even before my time, the auxillary verb "do" was regularly used, often for reasons of rhythm, as an alternative to the present, "I do eat" for "I eat/I am eating" or to the simple past "I did sing" for "I sang" (handy because you did not need to know the irregular participles! Both are still normal in negative sentences, "I do not eat cabbage" or "I did not have breakfast". Now the form "I do eat" is used to express a general state of affairs but not the simple present, as in "I do eat fish, but I do not eat meat." In the past tense the simple form "He ate not a morsel" has been entirely replaced in negative sentences "He did not eat a morsel". So: "We did cook the chicken" would shout "foreigner", "We cooked the chicken" - "native", and "We did not cook the chicken" -native; "We cooked not the chicken" -foreigner.
Yesterday when offline I gave the answer "We do not talk with whoever", and it was accepted. Then something went wrong (as often happens offline) and I failed to fnish. Now I repead, giving the same answer and it is wrong!!! English is not my mother tongue, so I could be wrong, I thought the word Whoever exists, doesn't it? And yesterday it was ok! Should I report it?
Beware, I am also a foreigner. The problem is that who has an objectform: whom. I also wanted to use whoever but since I never saw whomever, I rejected it and took anybody which was accepted. Now I consulted my old Penguin Dictionary which says: whoever= anyone who and WHOSOEVER = anyone at all who. For the latter,only, Penguin has an object form, whomsoever. When I tried: WE DO NOT TALK WITH WHOMSOEVER the Owl accepted it. We do not talk with whoever, wrong says Owl, inorrect grammar says Penguin We do not talk with whomever, wrong says Owl, does not exist says Penguin and WE HAVE PERFECT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BIRDS
Whomever exists. The relationships between who/whom and whoever/whomever are exactly the same. Both whosoever and whomsoever also exist, and have this same relationship; they're fairly archaic.
And "whomsoever" sounds wrong in this context. You could say, "Ask whomsoever you like." But you also can use "whomever" in that sentence. I think most cases where you can use "whomsoever", "whomever" is also acceptable, but the reverse is not true. I'm having trouble figuring out what about this context makes the -so- sound terrible.
Technically "either" is "cualquiera de los dos"
Nadie translates as "nobody or no-one" in my dictionary. In English it would not be correct to say "I don't talk to nobody" or "I don't talk to no-one." You can say "I talk to nobody / no-one." In English you have to say anyone or anybody in a negative statement. Hence cualquiera seems more correct. I would have expected the emphasis of "just" as warranting another word but Hey! I'm quite new to Spanish.
Yes, but there the adverb just is modifying the verb talk. Here the word just, strictly speaking, is not even in the sentence. But the meaning of the word cualquiera in this context is essentially just anyone. So We don't talk to anyone is an accepted answer, but adding the just is only valid if you have it modifying anyone as it is essentially built into that word.
Yes, any ole would work. I think you would definitely have to think about the phrase as colloquial. The word old doesn't really add anything from its core meaning to the expression. But it is just interesting looking at that expression from the eyes of a Spanish speaker (or at least trying). Spanish speakers refer to people by their various attribute adjectives to an extent that would essentially be considered rude in English. We do easily call someone "the blond" or other descriptive words to distinguish them, but many English speakers are taken à little aback to hear people referring to el gordo, la vieja, el anciano, etc as commonly as it happens in Spanish. It made the old in any old person more noticeable to me.
I´m having a really difficult time distinguishing between the sound of "lo" and that of "no" in the audio of this. Apparently it is saying "no" but when played at regular speed it sounds like "lo." Does it really sound like that when native speakers talk or is there a problem with the audio?
Yes. Actually neiht20 understated the case somewhat. Both ar and ir verbs are the same in the present and the preterite in the nosotros form. This means that really most verbs you hear in the present form of nosotros might also be preterite. AR verbs are by far the most common in Spanish, and, if I remember correctly, IR verbs are more common than ER verbs. I have always assumed that the translation basically defaults to present except if there are context clues that suggest preterite.
I am not a native speaker, but your question is not really answerable in any definitive way for almost any sentence of four words. Context is a significant factor in interpreting things like being snobbish or reserved. Just like the English sentence, the Spanish sentence might express that someone is snobbish or reserved, but it might also just mean they were carefully gathering information. Possible scenario. You are discussing a company's new policies regarding something. You tell your friend about the new policy and they say that there are so many rumors about what's going on, how do you know that that's the real deal. You say We don't talk to just anyone, we ask the company's owner.
Duo's lack of context makes it almost impossible to ascribe a motive or attitude to the words. Even the strangest Duo sentence can probably exist is several contexts. Just think of the different situations, comic, ironic, regretful, etc where you have heard or said something about someone killing somebody else. Among the times people have said I am going to kill him. They're going to kill me, he's going to kill her, or the other many variations, only a small percentage ever had any real chance of happening. But only the context gives the clue.
Whomever is one possible translation, but it only works in cases where cualquiera is an object or the object of a preposition as here. But cualquiera can also be a subject. It also can refer to a thing instead of a person. So you have whoever, whomever, whatever, whichever, but you also have situations where the best translation is Anyone, any, either or even ordinary. This is definitely a word you should sort of absorb instinctually instead of trying to tie it to any one word.