"Надо помыть яблоки для салата."
Translation:We need to wash the apples for the salad.
"I need to wash the apples for salad" is rejected, but why? It doesn't seem like надо is conjugated, or excludes a singular first person subject, am I right?
Isn't it necessary to write the subject? Is "Нам надо помыть яблоки для салата." the same that "Надо помыть яблоки для салата."?
"The apples need to be washed for the salad" is correct, please add this in!
Apple salad is common in the US. I never much cared for it, but it's not a strange dish. Even adding apples to a salad made of greens (lettuce, kale, spinach, etc.) would not be strange - in more experimental restaurants, it might even be common.
We need to wash the apples for the salad. = Нам нужно помыть яблоки для салата. Но в предложении для перевода, не указано, кто их должен мыть.
If I am the one you're agreeing with, how did you know I'm "John"? This is a little Twilight-Zoney. Blowing my cover could pose a risk to western civilization, товарищ!
Нам надо may be so common in Russian that leaving off нам isn't strange to a native-speaker.
My reaction was to mentally translate it as "one must/needs to" which in English is often expressed as a kind of general "we" - kind of like the Royal "We", except it's lower-case, and could be termed the common "we". It's a substitute for the more formal "one must".
It's also a substitute for "it", as in "it is necessary". I don't know why Duo doesn't accept "it is necessary", but Duo certainly should - unless my first thought is really strong in Russian - that a native-speaker naturally hears the unspoken нам. I tried it today, and it was rejected, so I reported it. The "correct" answer Duo gave me was "1 must wash the apples for the salad" - literally, the numeral "1", not the general pronoun "one".
It's really a shame that Duo leaves so much out which would help people understand the language at a basic level. I don't understand why the moderators do that. With a couple tweaks, Duo could be a stellar language program. As it is, it gets a solid C+/B-, less if they charged money.
All valid points, but I think some of us are still wondering if the first person "I need ..." is for some reason excluded, or a less likely meaning.
I don't think it's a question of what the Russian means, so much as what a good English translation is for the sentence. It seems clear to me that the sentence addresses a general need for the apples to get washed. The question is, by whom?
In English, "one must/needs to/has to" and "we must/need to/have to" are "synonymous" (syntactically identical), while "I must/need to/have to" is definitely further removed in meaning, because it focuses on the single obligation. The generality of "one/we" is just not included in the specificity of "I". Another differentiation: "Someone has to" vs. "I have to". Two very different concepts of who has the obligation or need.
OTOH, "It is necessary" is pretty much the same as "one/we", because the unstated term in that construct is "It is necessary [for someone]..."
I don't think "I have to/need to/must" is a valid translation, because it's too specific. Similarly, I don't think it would be valid to say that надо could include "he/she/they" as possible subjects, again because it lacks the generality of "one/we", and leaving the subject off of надо speaks to a generality.
In some other context, those other pronouns might be implied/inferred, but not here (in English). But I'd be very surprised if they were accepted here, because it's not good English.
i will ask to russian native speaker, as this duo is really starting to annoy me. надо ... it could be мне надо , нам надо, вам надо ... "it's necessary to wash the apples for the salad" is marked wrong.
We need to wash the apples for salad - is rejected for leaving out 'the' in front of salad. Not an unusual inappropriate use of 'the', although it would be used if it referred to a salad previously identified. Like, "I am going to school", as distinct from "I am going to the school".
"One must wash the apples for the salad" rejected 22 July 2018. Reported.
please can somone tell me what is wrong with the phrase " it's necessary to" ( instead of ' we need to')