Translation:They got to where no one else had ever gotten to before.
162 Comments This discussion is locked.
Agreed - if "they went" is accepted for "llegaron" then "had been" should be accepted for "había llegado". I think it conveys the meaning better than "had arrived" which sounds unnatural - perhaps a native Spanish speaker can confirm that is the way this would be understood?
You are right. Gracias. yet they mean "have to" . This sentence uses it more like : arrived at" . "Where has that boy 'got to'" with "got to" used for gone is what sounds archaic to me. I would use it for a kind of gentle humor when I can find something and don't want to get myself very concerned. A joke to lighten an annoying moment.
brbert, thanks for bringing us back to reality. There are lots of community centre classe, and city-run courses available most everywhere for a whole lot cheaper than university classes. I personally learn much better in groups where I benefit from others' questions and others' mistakes.
It doesn't matter how many exclamation marks (exclamation points) you use, it does not make it true. According to The Oxford English Dictionary: "As past participles of get, got and gotten both date back to Middle English. The form gotten is not used in British English but is very common in North American English."
It seems like this question is missing some translations. For me "they went where no one had gone before" was not accepted. I feel that is it acceptable to omit the "ever" and use a more idiomatic translation, and using both "ever" and "before" seems awkward and redundant in English.
A general form, which captures many ( but not all ) translations might be:
They [arrived (at,to),went (to),came to] where no one had (ever) [gone,been,come] (before).
where square brackets indicate mandatory substrings with multiple possibilities, and parenthesis indicate optional words.
Again, just curious, but who comes up with these translations? One of the things I've noticed is that the same sentence in Spanish can be translated (and accepted as correct) in seemingly more than one way. But any OTHER translation (even though it might be more accurate) other than that given, is marked wrong. ??? ~Kat
I think the translation should include: "The arrived where / when nobody else had arrived before." This could also mean: "They had arrived/come before anybody else had come before." Context is important: is Duo talking about landing on a new planet or just coming to a party early? Also using the lazy words "get/got/gotten" is a poor choice.
I put "arrived", and it was okay, but I also put "no-one", and it said I missed a space (between "no" and "one"). That's how you know you're dealing with an algorithm, not a person. And the "got to"/"gotten to" is not at all idiomatic, or any less awkward, for British-English speakers, it's just one of DL's clumsy little sentences.
I commented before and will quit after this on this subject. This is a sentence that I totally understand in Spanish, but the translation is the problem. A "correct" translation, IMO, is not so important as what the sentence means. We should not / cannot learn a language by translating it, no more than an infant can learn English by translating it into ... what? I give Duo great credit for trying to help us and I realize that the job is very difficult.
Binker 52 who said "This one is very strange to me as few English speakers would ever say anything like that! " I can only reply THINK IN SPANISH, NOT ENGLISH. Learn sentences as natives would use them, not as gringos would translate them. It does not matter what the sentence sounds like in English. You have to think in Spanish. Good luck!
I can confirm that it is strange for Americans too. But you're right... I do know a few people who speak with a thick Southern accent and could probably pull this off without raising any eyebrows. :) However, I'm sure this is just Duolingo going with a more direct translation.