I asked my native German friend. It's just the "best translation" of the meaning of the sentence. It's a common phrase in German. If you're on vacation and leave tomorrow, you say: "Morgen geht ES (ab/wieder) nach Hause." Or, if you're working and look at the clock, you could say: "In an hour gehts (= geht es) nach Hause."
"It goes home" - but technically you mean a person - either yourself or you're talking about somebody else going home. We don't really have this wording in English so we translate it with "we". That's literally incorrect but keeps the meaning somewhat intact. Often, in English, we will say that "we're going home in five minutes" without referring to who exactly will be going home, or without making sure everybody is actually going home at that time. But with context you expect people to know what you exactly mean, it's the same in German.
There is actually a similar construction that is used in english, "It's off (to somewhere)".
Eg 1. A work colleague asks "Aren't you taking the afternoon off?" You reply "Yep, just five more minutes tidying up here then it's off home"
Eg 2. You're on holidays away from home and are asked "Aren't your holidays almost over?" You answer "Yeh, only two more days then it's back home."
The "It's off/back home" can also have "with me/us" added at the end but is usually used without.
The fuller "Then it's (off/back) (home/to somewhere) with (me/you/him/her/us/them)" construction sounds more affected and dated to my ear but I'm no linguist.
(I've just found this page which includes many more examples for anyone who wants them: http://www.linguee.de/englisch-deutsch/uebersetzung/it%27s+off.html)
But all this leads me to think that possibly one of the best translations of "Und dann geht es nach Hause." is "And then it's off home."
It is actually also used in the US. Here is just one example (google for more if you want them): http://nypost.com/2014/08/26/long-islands-rubin-swept-out-of-open-now-its-off-to-college/
Interesting, though that's different due to the way it's used in the sentence - there's a subject to give it context. Anyway, you'll notice that the google results that come up for "it's off to" are primarily other tabloid articles, along with references to a song from a 1937 Disney film; "Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to ___ we go" (almost certainly where the phrase comes from, and likely why I've never heard it - I'm not 80 years old). That "we go" part is crucial to the meaning, because it shifts the subject of the sentence from "it" to "we" (unless you're talking about a robot going on a trip, perhaps).
Your opinion of the quality of the newspaper is actually totally irrelevant. A newspaper uses language that its readers understand and use and represents a far greater sample than just one person. The article is also from 2014 so hardly old. I know we all like to think we know everything but your personal experience simply doesn't reflect all English usage and your claim to know what all English speakers normally talk like is to say the least self-centered and clearly inaccurate.
I've no idea what point you are trying to make about tabloid articles. However the way this phrasing is used in this headline is the same way I used it in my examples and the same way it applies to the translation here. In my examples and the translation here the implied subject is the person talking, in the headline the implied subject is the person mentioned in the previous clause. But I appreciate that English usage in the US varies considerably, as is also evident from many other discussions here in duolingo.
I'm assuming you have a typo in this post (though possibly not). It's "off TO home". "It's off home" is something I have never heard before (30+ years native English speaking).
I've heard "I'm off home" (e.g. "a few more minutes, then I'm off home"), but never "it's" as it changes the sentence.
This construction in general is rare, I'd say. Usually in this context, the person would leave off the word "home" (e.g. "a few more minutes, then I'm off"). "I'm off" is from "taking off" as you stated above. The "it's off", however, is from "and it's off to the races" (a merry-type colloquialism). You need "to" if you're using "it's". "I'm off home" can be used (it's rare), as can simply "I'm off" (with no destination attached; to mean "I'm leaving"), but if the destination is anywhere other than home, that, too, needs a "to". :)
To hinga: in general, the translation of the French word 'on' conducts the verb of the target language to a third person form and would need a pronoun to transmit the idea of a non-identified subject. In English, I think it would be used the word 'one' to transmit that idea and so English speakers would say "One eats...". I hope I have helped. Greetings. March 13, 2017.
To alvaro: the French word "on" generally leads to two possible translations in English, one is "one" as you correctly described, the other would be "we" the way hinga put it. Both are correct, but often depending on the context there would be a better translation for each sentence in particular. Allow me to explain with two examples: 1. On peut trouver ce livre sur l'étagère. = One can find this book on the shelf. =This book can be found on the shelf. Here the person (subject of verb find) is not identified, because the speaker does not wish to emphasize it, all the while focusing on talking about the book. 2. On va boire un verre ce soir, d'accord ? = We'll go for a drink tonight, agreed? = Let's go for a drink tonight, ok? Here the speak does not say "we" but seeing the context, the agent/subject is quite clear. It is not a random "someone" or "one", but "we", i.e. the speaker plus the person/people to whom he/she's talking. In this case, you will not want to translate it into "One will go for a drink tonight, ok?" I hope I made myself clear, cheers :-)
I find it really odd when people tell me the way I speak is 'rare'. I use 'I'm off home' all the time (I'm British, by the way), for example, when I've had enough and I'm ready to leave work or I'm tired and saying good night to my friends in the pub. We really need to recognise there are regional variations in the way English is spoken: British English, Australian English and even weird things Americans say like 'Off TO home'. How bizarre is that?
"I'm off to home" and "I'm off home" both sound wrong to this Texan, the second much more than the first. On the other hand, "I'm off to the party/airport/races/office" sounds fine. Basically, you can be off, or you can be off to a destination, but you can't be off a destination. (Unless you're aiming for a certain destination and miss.)
I think the weird thing about "I'm off (to) home" is that "home" is both a specific location and a direction. You say "I'm going home", not "I'm going to home", but "home" is also the place where you're going. Saying "to home" in ANY setting sounds wrong to me, but so does saying "I'm off (something)" without the word "to" immediately following "off".
Instead, I'd probably say "I'm heading home" or "I'm going home".
Duolingo is a computer program. Although it was created by people, it does not have all the capabilities of a human brain to understand what you mean. It is not technically possible to put all possible correct translations into this program, or to include all the possible ways that people might say the same thought in English. The computer cannot know what you mean when you make a little mistake. If YOU know that you understood the German, then congratulate yourself. Your objective of learning German is being met. If you are confident that your English was correct and natural-sounding English, then report it under the "report a problem" link, so that your translation can be added to the database.
I cannot agree. Since so many English speakers have lousy grammar, it's really good they get an education on parts of speech, at least, from other languages. Trust me, you would run into your same complaint with any language you study. Perhaps you should brush up on your English grammar first.
The problem is that most of the English translations have bad grammar, not the people using the program. We are getting things wrong because the translations are bad - they often make no sense in English at all - and it's incredibly frustrating. It's hard to believe that it would be that difficult to find a native English speaker to correct the translations (contrary to above, they are not merely generated by a computer program).
It's the age old problem with translation. Some of the English translations will sound wrong because German grammar doesn't suit English translation well. So many times on DL I've changed the verb tense for a more accurate English translation (since we casually use more verb tenses than German) to be marked wrong. So I have had to construct a very bad sentence to be right.
But what am I learning after all! German, not English. So the English translations are teaching me something about GERMAN - for instance that they use the simple present when English uses the future. THAT is a more valuable lesson than making a perfectly grammatical English sentence.
The primary lesson is actually remembering when to type the nonsense sentence, since you can't rely on actually translating it. I don't personally get any value out of it other than that either, but if you do, then good for you. Whether one learns anything from it or not does not in any way negate the point that writing a correctly worded English sentence as a translation should never be "wrong" in the first place.
That totally depends on how deeply you investigate the quirk or failure of translation. I think of Duolingo as a launching pad for studying a language, not a place for perfect English or German translations. If one of my acceptable English sentences is marked incorrect, then there must be a grammatical snafu I'm not comprehending. There are many excellent comments that help so much with almost every weird structure. I'm grateful for those.
Then it's just context.
Yes, if you had just recently been talking about a horse, then Und dann geht es nach Hause would be interpreted as "And then it goes/will go home".
If you had just been talking about the timetable for your family reunion and mentioned the group photo, then Und dann geht es nach Hause would be interpreted as "And then it's time to go home (for us/for them)".
It is one of the ways that "es" can be used.
No, it's not incorrect. Most of us have been taught at some point during our education that it is incorrect, but it is not. This article may be helpful:
es geht (jetzt nach Hause) is impersonal -- it doesn't necessarily imply "we"; it could imply "you" (one person) or "you" (several people), perhaps even "he" or "she" or "they".
A bit like "Now it's time to go home", which similarly doesn't say for whom the time has come to go home.
1 - es does not explicitly mean "we". It could mean "they", for example.
es geht nach Hause literally means something like "An act of going-home will now take place", but does not say who will be going home.
Much like Jetzt wird gegessen! means that "eating shall take place now!", which implies that the person who is supposed to be eating is the listener or listeners, but could also mean someone else.
1.Okay thanks that helps. So can we say "Es isst" to express that the fact of eating will take place whithout saying who will be eating, or "es" can be used this way only with "gehen", or "es geht nach Hause" is a fixed expression or idiom that means that ? 2. And what about the future expressed by present tense?
So can we say "Es isst" to express that the fact of eating will take place whithout saying who will be eating
No; you need the passive voice for that: es wird gegessen.
or "es" can be used this way only with "gehen"
I can't think of any other verb that works this way right now.
The destination is more flexible, though: Jetzt geht's los "Now we/they depart"; Jetzt geht's nach Hause "Now we/they go home"; Jetzt geht's unter die Dusche "Now you/we/they go and take a shower" etc.
what about the future expressed by present tense?
(This is also possible in English: "I'm going to the store tomorrow.")
I don't know what the rules are for when it's permissible to refer to future actions with a present-tense verb, though.