I believe "you all" should be an accepted translation of voi--it accepted it as valid other times, why not now?
I totally agree with this. Voi form is you plural or you all. It is correct
I wrote: "No, you are THE cooks." This is how this sentence in English, more often than saying it without the article or will "all."
Cook is cuoco....masculine. If the cook happens to be female..is the proper italian then cuocha? Does the italian change depending on the gender of the cook?
Cuoco, cuoca, cuochi, cuoche. Here the "h" is just added to be sure that even if you change the ending you still pronounce the "c" like a "k". It's the same kind of rule that makes you say: "one cross" but "three crosses" because adding an extra "s" would just not do it in that case.
why is there a 'h' added in. wouldn't the natural guess for plural cuoco be cuoci?
when a 'c' is followed by an 'i' or 'e' in Italian, it is pronounced like 'chef.' adding an 'h' allows it to retain its "hard" sound, like it 'cat.'
What's the difference between cuochI and cuochE? Aren't both the plural of cuoco?
This sentence does not properly translate. I entered in: 'No, you are cooking.' They could have also created a translation for 'no, you are the cooks' if they wanted to keep it plural.
Some of these sentences feel useless, in what context would anyone ever say 'no, you are cooks'. It's not even a complete sentence alone, it doesn't make sense
I tried it with all the cooks and again I tried it with you are the cooks got wrong both times.
Where do you get the 'all'? The hint for siete says 'are' or 'be', no 'all'.