1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Russian
  4. >
  5. "Нет, яйцо надо приготовить!"

"Нет, яйцо надо приготовить!"

Translation:No, the egg should be cooked!

November 21, 2015



'“no, the egg needs cooking" is a good natural English translation but marked as wrong.


I agree, this is what I put too, but marked as wrong. In English, "the/an egg needs cooking" means "the/an egg needs to be cooked", which is given as the correct answer.


I wrote this as well.


I've tried to report the same thing but then realized I had plural eggs for some reason so now I've sent off a pointless report ://


I thought that we had to use a dative case with НАДО


I think it's because the egg here is in the accusative case (the thing that should be cooked) and the pronoun has been omitted: Нет, яйцо (мне or нам) надо приготовить!


The suggested answer presented when I got this one wrong was "No, 1 needs to cook the egg." That's terrible written English. Numerals are only acceptable in a sentence when they are used to explicitly state quantities, or numerical constructs (math, phone numbers, etc.). This is wholly unnatural. "One" when it is used to refer to a person in a general statement, must be written as "one."

[deactivated user]

    I think this variant was generated by Duolingo automatically, and there’s little course contributors can do with it.

    It was suggested to you because your answer was closest to it (or at least Duolingo’s algorithm though it was what you were trying to type). The default answer is ‘No, the egg should be cooked!’.


    How would you say, "an egg is needed to cook"? As in, you can't cook without an egg. I know that would be a weird sentence, but I've seen weirder here. Thanks.


    «Чтобы готовить, нужно яйцо» is the most straightforward way I can come up with.


    I put: "No, the egg needs to cook."


    "No, the egg needs to be cooked", was my poor attempt at translation.


    That is what I thought it should be too... I honestly don't think our answer is really wrong, since Russian doesn't have a perfect transliteration into English, so translation will usually be somewhat subjective.. but this is just a mobile app, and they had to draw the line somewhere... Oh well. :)


    As Anaphasiy said above, the egg is in the accusative (which for this neuter noun is the same as the nominative). A more literal translation would be 'No, it is necessary to cook the egg'. Your sentence would have the egg in the dative - яйцУ - 'It is necessary FOR THE EGG to cook'.


    Many answers were not accepted: We must cook an egg. One has to cook an egg. The egg has to be cooked.

    It insisted on one needs to cook an egg.


    Is there a difference between готовить and приготовить?


    I would also like to know this


    Yes, there is. Готовить is an Imperfective verb, and is about the continuous process of cooking (think on English Imperfect or continuous tenses, but as a different verb).

    Пригатовить is a Perfective verb, and is about the final result of getting a meal ready, and implies a deadline for finishing the cooking (think on English perfect tenses, but as a different verb and not just a different inflection or using an auxiliary verb).


    The answer given is "No one needs to cook the egg.".


    Don't forget that comma! No, one needs... Otherwise it means nobody needs to instead of disagreeing and saying someone does need to.


    This should be more clear


    I translated, "No, an egg needs to be prepared!" Is this incorrect?


    This is silly. "No 1 needs to cook the egg" is not correct English at all. I put "No, we need to cook the egg" which is a meaningful phrase given that the English rarely use the word 'one' as a personal pronoun


    What's wrong with "no, the egg should be cooked."?


    Isn't the case that you usually say 'boil' instead 'cook' when talking about eggs? Why then is it not counted as a possible translation?


    If they meant the egg should be boiled they'd say "сварить". In this case we don't know how exactly the egg is supposed to be cooked.


    Makes sense but for all the non-cooking experts it might be a bit confusing. Also, boiling and cooking are used more or less synonymously and сварить can be translated as 'cooking' too so I don't really see the point here. Anyways, thanks for the response :)


    I've seen "приготовить" translated as "to boil" in other exercises, but here only "to cook" is accepted. Is there a reason for that?


    "no, the eggs need to be prepared" seems to be better. The eggs might already be cooked, but not completely prepared yet (for example, they might already be boiled, but still have their shells on or they might have been boiled, but need to be painted for Easter).


    Weird that this only shows up in the practice section. I never encountered this phrase in a lesson.


    "No, egg needs to be cooked" is rejected, but to a native English speaker this is a valid way of talking about "egg" in a mass sense, and would be synonymous with "...eggs need to be..." In Russian, can't this be construed in the mass sense like картошка, or is it strictly "a/the egg"?


    Why is "no, egg needs to be cooked" not accepted?

    Learn Russian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.