"I like the sun and I don't like the fog."
Translation:Я люблю солнце и не люблю туман.
how about using "a" as the conjunction? Liking vs not liking seems like a contrast to me?
The conjunction "а" is mostly used to contrast single entities, rather than whole statements. And the way the Russian sentence is constructed - the way both parts are written as factual statements, using the regular word order, and there's no stress on any specific word - using "а" as the linking conjunction would sound awkward.
You can use "но" instead, this one is specifically used to contrast statements: "Я люблю солнце, но не люблю туман". The result, however, arguably strays too far from the original English sentence, expecting it to have a 'but' instead of the 'and'.
Here are some of the ways the Russian sentence could be rephrased to allow the "а" conjunction (emphasised words are in bold):
"Я люблю солнце, а туман не люблю" - works as a translation of the original English sentence.
"Я люблю солнце, а не туман" - I like the sun, and not the fog.
"Я люблю солнце, а не люблю - туман" - I like the sun, and what I don't like is the fog.
"Я люблю солнце, а не избегаю его" - I like the sun, not avoid it.
"Я люблю солнце, а он не любит" - I like the sun, and he doesn't.
In regard to the last sentence, it should be noted that the conjunction "а" can be used to link complete statements when those have different subjects: "Я люблю солнце, а он не любит туман". The statements are not exactly contrasted in this case, however.
Thank you, that's very helpful! I guess I had the first one of your examples in mind, but wasn't too sure about the word order.
But why, then, is "I put on a uniform , and you put on a sweater" translated with "a" instead of "i" in the ex. with forced choices?
This one falls into the 'different subjects' case I described in the last paragraph. It's a whole new can of worms, but in short - it's a quirk of the conjunction "и" in that when you use it to link two independent clauses (subject + predicate), it can make it sound like the second clause is a result of the first one. Or at least it's direct temporal continuation.
Meaning, you can definitely use "и" in your example: "Я надену форму, и ты наденешь свитер" - but then it's implied that the second person will put on the sweater only after the first one puts on the uniform. Possibly, only because of that. Translated into English, it would be best rendered as 'and then'.
(At this point, I have to note that this is not exclusive to the conjunction "и", and the list of possible shades of meaning behind each conjunction is beyond the scope of a Duolingo comment.)
What I'm getting at is that the choice of the conjunction is forced in this case precisely because these shades of meaning are too specific, whilst Duolingo is designed to teach you to convey information neutrally. The conjunction "а" simply links one clause to another, introducing a new subject - so Duo expects the learner to draw the conclusion that they're supposed to link clauses with "а", and things within clauses with "и".
I'm also still learning, but that must be the accusative case in this sentence. FYI, солнце is a neuter noun and is the same in both the nominative and the accusative.
You're right, любить governs the accusative. In Russian a distinction is made between animate/inanimate. Inanimate masculine and neuter nouns don't change in the accusative, and they look just like their nominative forms, whereas animate ones (people names included) do. Neuter nouns are rarely going to be animate (I actually don't know of any, but I assume theoretically there could be, seeing as grammatical gender is often arbitrary), and so in this case there will be no change.
(I assume you meant "neuter" instead of "feminine")
There are some important neuter singular nouns: животное (animal), насекомое (insect), and существо (being/creature) are three. In the accusative singular, they look like nominative singular. In the accusative plural they look like genitive plural.
Yes, you're right! I'll fix that slip-up. Feminine does have its own pattern in the accusative, which is not affected by animate/inanimate distinction. Thanks for the correction. And I figured there must be neuter animate, but couldn't think of any from the top of my head. However, I wasn't aware they followed that particular pattern though. Thanks for the contribution!