Why the "что"? To me it would sound more natural to say "что? У неё нет масла?" I don't get why the "что" is there in the middle.
Same. The "что" in the middle blew me off completely so I went with "What, doesn't she have any butter" and it was marked as correct, thankfully.
I understand it quite well. In english when threatening someone"I'm gonna...", you might get an answer "You what, what you gonna do?". Similar here: "She what, doesn't have butter?", but I guess here it would be more emotional like "She what?! How come she doesn't have any butter?? OMG."
In English we would never say: • What's she no butter? It's unlikely that we would say: • What, doesn't she have any butter? We would say 'Has she no butter?' Or 'Hasn't she got any butter?' Or 'doesn't she have any butter?' Even 'What? She doesn't have any butter?' Both of the examples given as correct would sound strange in English.
"What, doesn't she have any butter?" sound perfectly okay to me. Unless you're referring to the fact there's no question mark after the "What", in which case I'd still think it's fine but a bit more debatable.
I agree. People often start a remark with the disbelieving or jeering use of "what?" (maybe a truncation of "what do you mean?!" or "what's the matter?") It's a colloquial speech use, not a formal or written use.
Maybe one kid doesn't want to go along with something the others want to do: "What, are you scared or something?"
Why won't she eat her toast? She says it's too dry. What, doesn't she have any butter?
Your examples sound valid but the way it would be written is "What? (as in 'please repeat yourself') Are you scared or something?" Ending simply at the "What?" would be considered a complete "sentence". Or "What? Doesn't she have any toast?". I think whoever made this question probably needs to brush up on proper punctuation. It should probably be worded as "У неё что? Нет масла?"
So is this literally, "She has what? Not butter?" Will someone please explain this sentence to me?
Transliteration just means writing something in one alphabet into another. What he did was wrong because he translated individual words—not the thought. His answer had English words in it, but it wasn't good English.
His point was about the literal translation of the words, not whether it was good English. As far as I can tell, "She has what? [No] butter?" is a good literal translation, which English speakers need to know if we are going to be able to reproduce the sentence properly in the future.
In English lack of butter is not the focus, but explains the focus. So it could be a response to “She can't make your birthday cake." That would be the что.
I agree with pretty much eveyone else. This makes little sense. In English this would be "What? Doesnt she have [any] butter?" Two(ish) seperate but related sentendes.
This should be removed from rotation. If it's is something idiomatic it might be ok reintroducing it somewhere else, clearly noted as such.
This one was very tricky! And impossible to guess. It sounds so unnatural. I still doubt if this is used during a normal conversation...
At her what, not butter?
That's as literal a translation to English that I can make out. It seems that in the genitive case, you always start the sentence with the subject (in this case, "at her" or У неё )
I had responded: <<Does she have something but not butter ?>> I was far from figuring out the right answer.
"What she doesnt have butter as a state makes absolutly no sense duolingo
That is actually short for: What has she no butter? Which is perfectly fine. "What's" can be short for "what is" and for "what has". Depends on the context.
I won't argue my translation suggestion but "What, does not she have any butter?" sounds extra awkward. At least contract the not or move it one place to the right.
Come on duolingo, more than 40 comments calling for a new phrase or explanation about this sentence, are you still there? Fixing problems? Or creating a new platform nobody needs? Or putting flags instead of leaving the lovely old xp medals on our phone profiles?
What about "what she does have, isn't it butter?" It's how I understood that
In colloquial Russian we often ask У тебя ЧТО, нет (чего-то)? We can say it if we are very surprised (= Why don't you have ...?) It also sounded false here. The word ЧТО must be stressed ( "ШТОО"). And the word "мАсла" has a wrong stress, too. The prononsation is too bad. I didn't even catch the meaning of this phrase..)
I read "she what, no butter?" So I answered "She doesn't have any butter?" I cut out "what" completely and it was marked correct. I would like to know if что is required when speaking with a native Russian speaker like that or if that's somehow just a goofy exercise to keep us on our toes.
And I had, at his table is not butter... (That's what I heard, anyway).