"Почему ты позавтракал без меня?"
Translation:Why did you eat breakfast without me?
"to breakfast" is still a perfectly valid verb in English.
(reported, for "Why did you breakfast without me?")
On the other hand, "why did you've breakfast without me", offered as a correct answer, is not. The full version "why did you have breakfast without me" would be needed there, or else contracting the auxiliary verb instead, "why'd you have breakfast without me?".
(reported, via the "the correct solution is unnatural or contains an error" feature)
I saw something like this before. "You have", of course, is perfectly correct. The abbreviation from "you have" to "you've" is automated and they can't change it, even though it's obviously incorrect. "Why did you breakfast without me" at least in my dialect sounds somewhat unusual, perhaps a bit dated, but is correct English and should be accepted.
I've never heard of the verb "to breakfast." It must be regional. Also, since "I've" is the contraction for "I have," I believe it can always be used, although it may sound unnatural colloquially. I don't think "I've" is incorrect here.
Regards "to breakfast": it's not regional so much as merely a bit dated (like Theron says). It's extant in both British and American English:
Regards "I've": nobody mentioned "I've" apart from you; do you mean "you've"? If so, do you have any basis for your belief that "Why did you've breakfast without me" is correct?
"personal pronoun + have" is not contracted to "-ve" when we also have an auxiliary such as "do". If we're going to contract anything, it'd be the word "did", for example:
"Why'd you have breakfast without me"
The reason we can't (by any reference or usage that I can find or have encountered) contract the main verb there when there's an auxiliary present is because it's necessary to differentiate, and contracting the main verb while there's an auxiliary present would make it look like the main verb is the auxiliary.
Wow! Good work! The only caveat is that one can find anything that's technically correct/colloquially unused (or vice versa) in Wiktionary or any thorough dictionary for that matter. Just because it's not TECHNICALLY incorrect doesn't mean it should be taught or used in a language learning program, where non-native speakers are being confused. An example of this would be the grammatically incorrect "dangling preposition," which has become so common that even news anchors are saying them in official news reports. Having said that, "Why did you breakfast without me," sounds incorrect at most or highly pretentious (or hyper-correct) at best, at least in the four States that I have lived and watching hearing American media all my life. Let's not teach foreign speakers English that isn't used. I grew up in the U.S. If you are from the U.K. or any other English-speaking country, then I retract this statement. However, I think the Duolingo Incubator folks should clarify which English is taught or used here. If you'd breakfasted without me in England, I wouldn't have complained. :-) Cheers, Mate
Yes, I'm English, and would use "breakfast", "lunch", and "dine" as verbs - more standard is indeed have breakfast, have lunch, have dinner - but the verbs are fine too.
I'm having a little trouble reconciling these two seemingly opposed statements:
- "Let's not teach foreign speakers English that isn't used. "
- "since "I've" is the contraction for "I have," I believe it can always be used, although it may sound unnatural colloquially"
As discussed, "did you've" is definitely not correct anyway, but my confusion stems from that in the case of "to breakfast" you're championing "it might be correct but it shouldn't be accepted as it's not so commonly used", and in the case of "did you've", you're championing "it should be accepted despite the fact it sounds unnatural".
For what it's worth, regards "which English", DL has a policy of accepting all major regional variations of English (at the very least Br, Am, Au).
As for which is preferred, that varies on a course-by-course basis, depending largely on what the course contributors (mostly not native English speakers) knew best - usually Am, occasionally Br.
No arguments from me. Thank you for clarifying British English. I support teaching regional varieties. It would be nice to differentiate, though. This is where disagreements occur, when people's ears have heard different dialects their whole lives. Don't take it personally, not worth inserting emotion into it.
Agreed, to breakfast is common colloquial British English whilst have breakfast is a bit formal and old fashioned.
Позавтракал is the perfective aspect, specifying the specific breakfast event (time and place) of occurrence. Завтракал is the imperfective aspect, meaning had breakfast in general, not any particular time or place.
The problem with "why'd" is that it could be either "why did" or "why had." It's not a fixed contraction like "didn't," "would've," "I'll," etc. But since this a course for English-speakers, it should be accepted. We English-speakers understand it anyway.
DUO tells me I should have written THE breakfast. This is obviously wrong., Isn't it ?
The suggested translation doesn't have "the" in it. Are you sure your sentence was correct otherwise?
It's not wrong, but it's out of context. Normally we wouldn't say "the" breakfast unless we were referring to a particular one.