Translation:The manager says that he would have checked the phones precisely.
They REALLY need to accept more variations here, I have had two different, perfectly valid and legible English translations deemed "incorrect" for unknown reasons.
I said "The manager says, he would have checked the telephones precisely" and was marked wrong. The only real difference I can see is that I said telephones where they said phones which Duolingo usually doesn't seem to have problems with.
I said "The manager says that he would have checked the telephones exactly" and they marked it wrong, even though when I got it wrong the first time (because I put "exactly" in the "wrong" location) this was the Duolingo translation.
I said "The manager says he would have precisely tested the phones." Why is it wrong?
I don't see an error there. Maybe it is just a version, they didn't plan for. What did you get as correction? Maybe the positioning of the adverb set them off. That happens for me all the time.
I was given "The manager says that he would have checked the phones precisely", IIRC.
I think it sounds better with "precisely" at the end, but leaving out "that" is fine.
The only thing it marked wrong was that I said telephones instead of phones, which I see no reason why there should be issue with, especially since it's an easier cognate from "Telefone"
I also think the literal translation for genau here sounds strange. Would check thoroughly be a better combination?
I, personally, think that "thoroughly is the most complete translation. DL DOES accept this, if it is happy with the rest of your sentence................but it's rather picky on that!
I gave up after five tries to get it exactly (Phones instead of telephones) for example and just copied and pasted the exact answer Duo wanted. Shouldn't have to do this. Duo should accept minor translation differences.
There is very little learning here. I tried around a dozen times to translate this sentence into english and all were not accepted. I have reported every one as "should be accepted". Unless there is some accusatory meaning that does not translate into english, I simply do not get the context of the sentence and why it must be translated only one way. That is he would have and implying you didn't. All of my translations said that the manager would have had them checked or say that he would have precisely checked them, but were incorrect. I suggest not and I come away with no other learning that it mist be precisely translated, meaning the is only one translation which is doubtful I suggest. This is a waste of time.
Yes, willitwork, this is not Konjunktiv 1, as should be used for reported speech, therefore we must assume that the manager was actually speaking in the subjunctive, and someone is, here, reporting it. So DL's answer is correct, but doesn't teach us much.
It's just more colloquial without "that". Personally, I'd accept it, but maybe they want to be more formal.
I agree as a native US English speaker that either "..says he would have...: or "...says that he would have..." can be used. They are both used with about equal frequency in speaking and mean the exactly the same thing.
Native US English speaker: I am not at all sure what the English translation even means. I can imagine someone checking phones "carefully" or "thoroughly" but the use of the word "precisely" in this context is simply confusing.
And what is wrong with “The manager says that he would have checked the telephones precisely”?
So what does "genau geprüft" really mean? I've never heard (in English) of someone checking something precisely.
"the manager said he would have tested the phones precisely" to test and to check are both correct meanings for prufen. I think Duo becomes rather unnecessarily picky, when both words are correct.
the only word different that I used with this word order was 'carefully' instead of 'precisely'. Carefully is a much more natural and perfectly accurate word to use. The Duo system really needs to get a better computer more able to accept perfectly acceptable variations
Hi J.P.MAP. There certainly should be more acceptable variants on many of DL's examples, but this is not the computer's fault so much as the lack of staff to input all the viable suggestions into the database. I suspect that this comes down to the fact that it is FREE to the user and the advertising, (that should fund it) never appears.
This kind of sentence is confusing to me because indirect speech requires the Konjunktiv I (in this case "er habe ... geprüft."), but I have also heard that Germans use the Konjunktiv II colloquially or when the Konjunktiv I is the same as the indicative form. So the meaning of this sentence become ambiguous since it's not clear if the subjunctive mood is expressing the speaker's distancing himself from the quote or if it indicates the conditional nature of what the quoted person actually said.
Is this actually ambiguous, or am I overthinking it or missing something?
After a little analysis of this sentence I have decided that the key words are:- GENAU - ER - HATTE - "Precisely He Has." They give the information about How What and When.
"The manager says he would have checked the phones carefully" was not accepted.
I wrote the EXACT thing it says in the correction and it wasnt approved. No typos or spelling mistakes.
Shouldn't this also be considered correct? "The store manager says he would have exactingly tested the telephones."