Steve, I read your most recent post & the only thing I can say is "Stick with it and don't give up!" Learning even a little in a foreign language is better than not trying. Natives will appreciate you making the effort to speak their language regardless of how well or how poorly you speak it.
German's comments always make sense. From my own experience of going to Italy with only one full course of Duo under my belt I have to say that it provided me with some of the most memorable experiences of my life. Opening my mouth in a foreign country and in a foreign (to me) language at first was an intimidating experience for sure but then to have a native respond to me having understood the sounds that I was making was truly a wonderful thing and something that I can never forget. If I have any advice to give it would be to not get caught up in the pedantry that goes on regarding some of the comments that appear in these discussions. If you understand the intent of the translation that DL is offering then take that as a strong foundation on which to go on and build a comfortable relationship with the language. Just keep going and don't look back and you'll be surprised how far you've gone.
Me too Patty. And some of the English words I use appear to be wrong the next time I use them despite being accepted before. Am currently undergoing miseries with subjective present verbs and am wondering if it is really worth battling through as it is highly unlikely I shall ever be able to hold much of a conversation anyway.
nerevarine: 'always'/'for always' -- regardless of whether there is in fact a difference, I think the point is a user choosing either one has understood the italian idea, which is what's important. We're not here to argue about how thin or thick the hair is some users are trying to split, it's understanding what the italian idea means that counts and choosing 'always' or 'for always' tells me at least that the person's understood that.
Steve, when I taught I'd tell students having trouble with verb forms that it's called a verb 'tense' because that's how it makes most students feel, but it doesn't have to, it just takes time and patience. It sounds like you're doing great, just keep it up. Give "Pimsleur" a look. There's no grammar ever, no reading, writing -- just listening and speaking. It works for what most people trying to learn another language want it for -- basic comprehension and communication.
Steve, Steve, "We will always be together" and "We will be together forever/for ever" don't necessarily mean the same thing. It depends on context. For example: "When we begin to travel to different places, we will always be together, i.e. we won't take separate vacations." You couldn't use 'forever' in this context. Similarly, "We will be together forever in spirit even though we won't always be physically together in the same place."
I mean, there's a reason I asked for an example that doesn't come from a piece of art.
The term "fuhgeddaboutit" is in the American English lexicon, as is the phrase "ain't nothing." That doesn't mean that those are grammatically correct English, much less that they should be taught to non-native English speakers as such.
This is a nice piece on essere vs stare http://serenaitalian.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/difference-between-stare-and-essere/
In the US we were taught that I shall and we shall are the correct ways of saying these. But now, I will and we will are acceptable. It seems that I shall and we shall have become extinct , lol Hardly anyone says these anymore . Grammar is a living thing and can change over time.
Yes and no.
You're technically correct about "for good" being used as a way of saying "forever" in English. But it's highly idiomatic, so it's understandable that DL doesn't accept it here. It's also a bit more complicated, because "for good" is only used in specific contexts.
I can't think of a great way to summarize it, but I wouldn't use "for good" to describe a relationship between two living people. In English, we tend to use "for good" to imply some kind of finality, like when a company is out of business for good, or when a relationship is done for good. In this sentence, the modified object is persisting, so "for good" just sounds wrong.
Chris: It's unusual word order though I wouldn't call it incorrect. English tends to keep the verb and its 'complement' - what completes its meaning - close together, putting then non-essential information afterwards. So one test of what the complement is is to remove 1 one at a time and ask yourself if it still makes sense: "We will be together" versus "We will forever"; of course the second makes no sense; it's a fragment. "Forever" adds information, but isn't necessary. So again, English tends to keep verb and complement close together, which is why I suspect DL rejected your answer. That said, I wouldn't call your answer incorrect. Another example might help: "We are going tomorrow" vs "We are tomorrow going." "I speak Italian in Little Italy: vs "I speak in Little Italy Italian." etc.
Chris: I tend to agree with you and was just trying to explain why DL may have marked your answer wrong. If it's any consolation, German (which I realize you're not studying) does the reverse as far as verb and verb complement go and my students would invariably get the word order wrong, because they were following the English habit of keeping the verb and its complement together.
As discussed at length above, "for always" is cute-speak, and it would be totally acceptable to say in some conversational contexts (usually with a loved one or child). But it is not proper English, and it should not be offered as an acceptable translation on a site used by both native and non-native English speakers.