That goes well when the two things go together- like fish and chips or bread and butter, but to things that don't go together, does it still apply?
Duolingo accepts: Bread and wine were still left. This is clearer and preferable to the "official" posted translation. Quedar = to be left over in the sense that something is remaining, not that something is forgotten. FYI: this is quedar in the imperfect tense. Newbie confusion: when does one use quedar vs. dejar? I left my hat in the car. = Dejé mi sombrero en el coche.
(Not that you need it now, but ...) My sense is - two senses of "left" - Dejar - act of leaving some thing in some place; Quedar(se?) - being left/remaining in some place
Even though the official Duo translation is "There still was bread and wine," I believe that's incorrect. I acknowledge that the meaning is conveyed well enough. However, omitting anything along the lines of "remaining" or "left" is problematic for a proper translation. (And that's also the issue with your proposed translation, from my point of view.) Otherwise, we should not be using quedar in this sentence. That verb clearly suggests something remained. Without that element, the sentence reduces to "Aún hubía pan y vino."
The simplest translation for this sentence, again in my view, would be, "Bread and wine still remained." It's simple, direct and preserves the fundamental elements of the original. If you feel the imperfect needs better representation, you could say, "The bread and wine was still remaining." Either way, I would like to see something of quedar in the translation.
I don't why it is wrong and maybe it isn't, but it sounds strange to me as a native English speaker. Are you a native English speaker?
No, I'm not, and that's why I decided to ask, if my variant was right. :) Though it seemed gramatically plausible to me, it was marked wrong and nobody had asked the same question before me. Looks like you're definitely right and nobody says the phrase like this. Thank you!
bread and wine are pleural, so there were still bread and wine should be accepted
Is this not correct: "There was even bread and wine left." ? If not, how would the English sentence I have given be properly translated?
"There was bread and wine left over" or, "There was still some bread and wine" are two possibilities in English.
I have read the discussion below but still do not understand why "quedaba" rather than "quedaban" should be use with this translation. Two things remain (both bread and wine)
That is a good question. I just found this example in my old Schaum's Spanish Grammar: Ahora me quedan solo dos. Quedan is plural. Seems like it should be here also. I don't know the answer. Anyone, anyone?
Hi, because you need to use "was" instead of were. They are two singular objects not plural. There was still bread and wine or There still was bread and wine. If you were talking about something plural remaining then were is fine, for example, There were still bananas/There still were bananas etc. :)
If so, why do you need to say "There were Tom and Jerry" rather than "There was Tom and Jerry"?
I'm not sure I would say "There were Tom and Jerry" I think I'd still use was. However maybe they are being considered as a plural and therefore "were" is used. For example, "Who was at the party?" "There was David, there were the Smiths, there were Tom and Jerry" etc.
The cartoon characters Tom and Jerry would be quite a disaster at a party!
Could anybody kindly explain what is the difference between au'n and aun without apostrophe? I don't get it, and why did they (the Spanish speakers) need two practically equal words meaning nearly the same???
There is a good explanation at Aún vs. Aun: http://spanish.about.com/od/adverbs/a/aun.htm
They have different meanings. aún generally is used to indicate that an action or status is continuing (still or yet) while aun does not mean this. Although both can be sometimes translated as even, aun means even in the sense of included/including (e.g., even dogs won't eat it), while aún means even in the sense of still (e.g. we have even/still more in the back). Hope this helps.
Thank you, somewhat clearer now, still it is complicated, also because the translation is in English which is not my mother tounge. I should better look what is written in Russian, at least in this case.
In English, word position and punctuation could change the meaning of the sentence. 'Still, there was bread and wine' would mean there was nothing else, but at least there was bread and wine. 'There still was bread wine,' would mean there had been other food that was eaten at the same meal, but it was gone and only bread and wine were left over. How would the difference between the two be expressed in Spanish? Would it be with the verb form?
Personally, I think you're overthinking the English. Certainly, with context, punctuation, word order and intonation one can convey somewhat different meanings with a single sentence. However, without any context, I doubt you would get 20 native English speakers to agree on a single interpretation/meaning for either one of your constructions.
So, to answer your question about the Spanish, I think you'd rely upon context, intonation, word order and possibly other verbs (había?) to communicate differences in meaning.
I translated this as :"bread and wine still remains". It's old fashioned but still seems accurate.
There was still bread and wine (implying remaining / left over). However 'IS' should be accepted as its an ongoing state of being.
But it's talking about the past. It could be a discussion about an earlier time. For example:
"Not many people came to last Sunday's Mass. At the end, there was still bread and wine."
You certainly wouldn't use "is" there.
To Craig.zar: "still it stayed bread and wine" could be used as a sentence in English if someone was trying to turn bread and wine into something else, like cake and milk, maybe as a magic act or as a miracle. When they could not do it, then you could say your sentence. Your sentence means that the bread and wine remained as bread and wine and did not turn into something else.
very interesting interpretation. But it makes little sense in everyday English, unless it is about a failed magician!
"There still was bread" does not sound right, THEREFORE it should only be "there was still bread"
I believe aún only means "even" when used in comparatives, like aún más or aún mejor. A native speaker could help here, but I think your "even bread..." would use incluso.
Edit: I see now that Luis suggested "Hasta quedaba pan y vino" for "Even bread and wine were left."
These things can be confusing because in many cases, usage attempts to mirror the MENTAL PROCESS of a speaker. Now, does the speaker think of bread and wine as one thing or two things? You don't really know, so the best you can do is try to arrive at what a typical speaker would mean. Bread and wine are often lumped together as if they were one thing, so people usually treat them as one. But would you be wrong to treat them as two? No.
I'm not sure how you're supposed to be able to tell that the answer is "Aún quedaba pan y vino" and not "Aunque daba pan y vino" when it only gives you the audio.
I question the word order. If you put the stress on still you can put it first in the sentence.
Can someone explain to me the difference between "aún" and "todavía"? I loosely get why quedar was used instead of haber but "aún" isn't a word I ever really heard in school. Is there other meanings for it as well besides "still"?
Not really. The two are basically synonymous. It's possible there may be regional preferences for one versus the other (perhaps that's why you didn't hear "aún"). Both can be used where English calls for "still" or "yet." In comparative situations, the two can be used to mean "even" in the sense of "even more," "even less," "even further," etc. Note that "still" works just as well as "even" in those cases.
I have two spanish-english dictionaries, neither give "still" as a translation of "aún", and lists only "even", which doesn't make sense. "Aunque" > although; even though, might make sense, but it seems to me "todavia" is more appropriate. Comments?
Your dictionaries are incomplete. Aún (with accent) means "still" or "yet." Aun (without accent) means "even." There are times when "still" and "even" can be used interchangeably, but that's an issue with English more than Spanish. Aunque is yet another different word, though it clearly shares a common root. Todavia ought to work just fine as well, but I don't know if it's more or less appropriate. I'm guessing it's not, since Duo didn't choose to use it here.
"Still bread and wine was remaining" which also may explain use of singular