"This man sees his father."
Translation:Этот человек видит его папу.
I believe «мужчи́на» would make a better translation.
in general, ЧЕЛОВЕК may denote both man or woman. In this sentence, in addition, is not clear whose father is meant.
It should be accepted. The meaning is different, but the English is ambigous: it is not clear if the father belongs to the man mentioned or to another person. In the first case своего must be used and его in the second one.
It does not imply that it is not his father... Rather the use of его refers to somebody's (any male's) , and своего insists on the fact that it is his.
On a previous exercise it asked me to translate "man" and I put "человек", and it was marked wrong. I just wished DL would be consistent.
Probably because the sentence talked about a man, meaning a male person (мужчина), and not man, meaning the human race or a person (человек).
In Latin he/she/it sees is videt. I noticed many similarities between Russian and Latin.
At the end of the day, they both are indo-european languages. Like I was surprised while reading the kite runner that death is "mord" is farsi, similar to french "mort". Ofc this is just one example but it is great to learn these things
I know, its pretty surprising. Some verb endings are similar as well
I understand the English sentence as "This man sees his (own) father", and then "his father" should be either своего папу or just папу; right? его папу would be the father of another person (contrast Latin videt patrem suum : videt patrem eius).
I agree. Without context своего папу is a better translation. As it is this sentence means "this person sees his (i.e. some other man's) dad.
Without context, options are equal. We do not know it is a dad or dad friend.
"Этот мужчина видит его отец" was rejected. I see now that the accusative is not the same as the nominative, since отец is animated. Would "Этот мужчина видит его отеца" have been accepted?
Oh, right. Is that "floating e" predictable somehow or is it completely irregular?
It is a regular change of Old Slavic yers to е or to nothing. In отьць - отьца the last yer disappears and the before last changes to е.
You can see the same in пёс / пса or лев / льва.
you'd better remember such cases while learning than remember all the rules with all exceptions. Similar words usually change forms alike
"Вижу" would be "See", as in: I see/Я вижу. "Видит" would be "Sees", as in: She sees/Она видит.
I missed out его because I wasn't given the option of своего, and was marked wrong. Surely the sentence is perfectly OK without его in it?
This lesson's tips and notes site says as follows: "Only feminine nouns ending in -а / -я have a separate form [for accusative]." Папа being masculine, why is папу correct in this sentence?