its not in english. Literal translations are not "for english" they are their own languages with their own sentence structures and rules, so most other languages arent going to be Literally Translated to "good english"--- good english abides by ENGLISH language rules. thays why many times people learning english say things that sound "funny" to a native speaker but are close translations with irregular rules and applications applied willy-nilly to an outsider. (Even plurals... duck/ducks-goose/geese-ox/oxen-fox/foxes-octopus/octopi not as simple as adding an "s"; as a native english speaker i dont know WHY these appendages are but i know them to be accurate for the plural forms.)
I see comments constantly similar to this; open mind and just try to learn the rules as they already exist... or why even try to learn another language??
@snarlsweenus makes an interesting point, but I disagree with those who down-voted @Tenatle. The issue at hand is your philosophy of translation. While my own idea/philosophy/theory of translation is closer to that of @Tenatle than to that of @snarlsweenus, I believe them both to be valid ideas of what translation should be. If we look at the example of, "Меня зовут Дэйв - я Дэйв," it comes down to whether you prefer a literal-word-for-word translation - at the extreme, "Me (they) call Dave - I Dave." - or a give-the-exact-idea-in-the-most-natural-English translation - at the extreme, "My name's Dave - I'm Dave." (Note that there's nothing about "name" in the original Russian.) I think most people go somewhere in the middle. For the first part of my example, we could use any of: "Me call Dave.", confusing and ambiguous; "Me, they call Dave.", confusing but less ambiguous - it sounds like Tarzan speech; "Me called Dave."not as confusing but bad English, both according to your English teacher and according to any native English speaker; "They call me Dave."; "I'm called Dave."; "My appellation is Dave." (appellation being related to the French "appeler" meaning "to call".); "My name is Dave."; "My name's Dave."; and even something that is more like the second part than the first but is the most natural and commonly-used American way of saying the same thing as the first part, "I'm Dave." Forthe second part, and I won't give as many details: "I Dave."; "I am Dave."; "Me Dave." (bad English); "I'm Dave."; and, honestly, many things used to translate the first part. I personally feel very good about Duolingo's philosophy as I understand it, which seems very close to that of @Tenatle. As I see it, in a perfect world DuoLingo wants the closest-to-word-for-word translation that would be considered good English and natural English and currently-used English. It should definitely be considered good English by the majority of native English speakers, and only hopefully that should match up with what your English teacher considers good English. In this case, my first thought would be to use, "They call me Dave - I'm Dave." However, I then think that this is not really currently-used English. The only example I can think of is my WWII veteran Grandpa asking, "What do they call you, boy?" I answered, "Dave," which implied, "They call me Dave." With this in mind, I'd choose, "My name's Dave - I'm Dave."
For @snarlsweenus, I would point out that, "Do you already cooking dinner?" is not a strictly literal translation of, "Вы уже готовите ужен." (literal: of the letter; cambridge.dictionary.org : A literal translation of a text is done by translating each word separately, without looking at how the words are used together in a phrase or sentence.). An extremely literal translation would be, "You already (make) ready dinner?" There is no "do" in the original Russian. There is no specific, unambiguous marking of the present continuous, cooking, though "(you) cook" is a fair literal translation. In "Do you already cooking dinner?", we have the question form of the statement, "You already do cooking dinner" which is nonsensical English. What's more, its poor English is no closer to the original meaning in Russian. We are just as close to a literal translation using "are" instead of "do" as the auxiliary verb for the "to cook" verb, but, "You already are cooking dinner," makes sense to a native English speaker - it's good English. This has been my explanation of why I disagree with those who have down-voted the answer mentioning "poor English" and "good English." Without meaning any offense, I believe such people do not understand literal translation not the philosophy of translation in general.
For me, an American who grew up in the southwest part of the U.S and has travelled quite a bit, the usage with "yet" sounds more correct and much more idiomatic - that is, it sounds much more like what I've heard people around me say. When I hear, "Are you already cooking dinner?", or "Are you cooking dinner already?", I feel like the person asking the question is surprised to know dinner is being cooked, because the asker was rocketing dinner to be cooked later.
Note that, to be correct, you must use, "Are you cooking dinner, yet?", which matches the meaning of, "Are you cooking dinner already?". If you were to use, "Are you yet cooking dinner?", that would match the meaning of, "Are you still cooking dinner?", and would also make people in the west of the U.S. (and most of the rest of the country) think that you're 154 years old. Not many people use that sense of the word, yet, any more.
I agree with @draquila. In this "dinner" case, we only use the definite object, "the", if we have a special/unusual AND specific (i.e. definite) group of food in mind. I like to think of it this way: "dinner" in the set phrase, "cooking dinner", puts the emphasis more on the event of eating in the evening, though it does refer the food we will eat during this evening meal; if we use an article, "(a/the) dinner" refers to the actual food being cooked. An example of the second usage would be, "Have you already cooked the dinner (that the Johnsons brought for us?)"
Let me explain my mistakes, or if they are not mistakes, let me explain my decisions, or if they are not decisions, let me explain my thoughts that these were decisions, or if they are not thoughts, let me explain my reality that these were thoughts, or if they are not my reality, let me explain my understanding that excused these words to pass through this medium, or if it is not my understanding that excused these words to pass through this medium, let me explain my presence of passing through a medium, or if this is not my presence passing through a medium, let me explain an abstract distraction, or if this is not an abstract distraction, let me explain what it can be, or if this is not what it can be, let me explain. I wrote "ужине" instead of "ужин", and the feedback was the red colored flair popping up. Had I done something wrong? Did this arise out of something I started in the past, or is this something that starts my future?
I'm from the Southwest (of the United States), where "fixing dinner" is absolutely acceptable, including among educated company. I must admit, though, that my first thought was that I had heard things like, "What are you fixing for dinner?", more often. As I've gone to college, graduate school, and on to work in places including the West Coast, New England, the Great Lakes Region, and the South, the "fixing" usage has seemed to be hit-and-miss, meaning it didn't seem to be predictable by any geographic pattern. I must add that I've never heard my British friends use the phrase, "fixing dinner."
Americans from Oregon, Colorado, California, Indiana, New York saying "fix dinner" is perfectly natural: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/fix-breakfast-dinner-meal.2441925/
Even living in Scotland I've seen/heard Americans say that quite a lot and not just Southerners. I'd say it's quite widespread in the US, but not used outside, except in Canada, apparently.