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