Incorrect English sentences. Help us find them!
Dear users, we were told that we would be able to delete those English sentences which are incorrect. We cannot do that ourselves, we need to prepare a list of those and give it to the developers. We will try to find as many as we can, but if any one of you finds one or more, please, write them down here. Please make it very concise, just comment with the sentence itself. If you want to add explanations, answer to your own comment with the sentence alone. I will give an example below.
Also if someone submits an "incorrect" sentence, and you think it is correct, answer to that comment, and explain your position.
You can also vote up, if you think the sentence is indeed incorrect, and vote down, if you think it is fine.
I think you're right -- I have heard things like "Oh right, we are in January already" when dealing with appointments. But never on its own (without the already).
As to being written by the native speakers: my guess is, no. They seem to come from some text corpus, and the text corpus wasn't very good. Some of them in the German=Russian course seem to have been translated from English, but not very well. (The constructions are not native german constructions, but rather sound like 1:1 translations from english, the same way we are trying to keep as close to the original english sentences as possible -- maybe artefacts left over from creating the English=German course the same way we are now creating the Russian=x courses). A few others seem to be from some rather old texts (there are some "aged" expressions in there).
So if we are lucky most of the corpus is from texts by original speakers. If we are not, some of the sentences are translated from whatever language has been the very first one in the set (I assume, spanish).
If I were creating a Russian course, I would employ a number of artificial sentences, of course... For grammatical purposes. But why use awkward translations from other languages? For English? I bet even some of the programmers in the staff have English as a mother tongue.
The course mostly looks as if it was indeed written by a native; the use of many words not in their main meanings supports that suggestion. So typical for any person to forget that many words in their language mean vastly different things depending on the context :)
And what about "Your students have given us new hope"? I see it from usage that "hope", as many, many abstract nouns — is normally used with no articles. However, sometimes it is used with them. And there is also "A New Hope" (the old Star Wars trilogy). Would it even be correct to use "have given us a new hope" here?
Using articles with abstract nouns, as you said, is very uncommon. It wouldn't be correct in the 'students' example. I think Star Wars gets away with it because the new hope is Luke. He only other instance of using an article with hope is in The Great White Hope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_White_Hope
I'm not sure what the problem is with this one; we use this phrasing all the time: I eat cake, meat, chicken, steak, eggplant, coleslaw... But there are a few that come to mind that we don't say: I eat sandwich, cherry, donut... and "I eat tomato." just doesn't ring true for me.
Agreed. I think the problem is that "tomato" is a count noun, not a mass noun. So you can say "I eat tomatoes" but not "I eat tomato". The opposite would hold true for "water", which is a mass noun but not a count noun, so you can say "I drink water" but not "I drink waters".
That certainly seems so. This is interesting it me - something I've never thought of before. It seems that the vast majority of food - or, at least, what I can think of - falls into this category while at the same time being considered countable. I bake a pie. I eat pie. She's making two pies. Other than a few things, such as sandwiches, lollipops, popsicles, biscuits, waffles... and ribs or chicken wings... I can't think of a lot of food that can't be used as a mass noun when preparation or habitual eating is the context. Hamburger is a good one - "I eat hamburger" immediately distinguishes itself as the meat, not the sandwich. I thought it might be that really new foods or dishes were not included, but "I eat chicken cacciatore" or "I eat caesar salad" sound fine to me...
I think I have it. If you eat the food (typically) in its entirety, you must use the plural when saying "I eat/buy/cook/etc." meaning that you do so in general. So, I eat chicken/pie/broccoli, but not for Sandwiches, apples, oranges, candy bars, chicken wings, ribs, waffles, marshmallows, pancakes, cookies, bananas...
This isn't technically incorrect, but I think the context that would be required is so convoluted that it should probably be changed to "A new restaurant opened yesterday."
The only way I can see this exact phrase coming up is if the "has" is used for emphasis exactly to contradict something: "That would only be true if a new restaurant opened yesterday." "A new restaurant has opened yesterday." --And even then, I think someone would say "A new restaurant did open yesterday."
The rule for British English is that you can only use the present perfect to refer to an event taking place in a defined time period which is not yet closed. Hence you would say "I have seen him today" not "I saw him today", "I have eaten there this year" not "I ate there this year" and "I have never [in my life] been to France" not "I never [in my life] went to France".
The past simple, in contrast, is used to refer to events taking place during a defined time period which is closed. Hence, you would say "I saw him yesterday" not "I have seen him yesterday", "I ate there last year" not "I have eaten there last year", and "Mozart never went to Las Vegas [during his life, which is over]" not "Mozart has never gone to Las Vegas [during his life, which is over]".
Consequently, under the rules for British English, "A new restaurant has opened this week" would be fine, as would "A new restaurant opened yesterday", but "A new restaurant has opened yesterday" is definitively wrong.
Statistical evidence taken from the Internet overwhelmingly indicates that - in this case at least - the rules for correct use the present perfect in British English also hold true for current, online, international usage. Google searching yields 10 hits for "a new restaurant opened yesterday" and only 1 (this Duolingo discussion) for "a new restaurant has opened yesterday". Furthermore, "it opened yesterday" yields approximately 1,300,000 hits, while "it has opened yesterday" yields approximately 10 hits, most of them apparently written by Italians. This Google NGram also indicates that historical written usage accords with correct British English: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=yesterday+he+ate%2Cyesterday+he+has+eaten%2C+yesterday+he+went%2C+yesterday+he+has+gone&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cyesterday%20he%20ate%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cyesterday%20he%20went%3B%2Cc0
Если вы имеете в виду "я иду сказать своей маме привет" было бы "I am going to say hello to my mom." А так как это же предложение слово в слово обозначает "Я буду говорить своей маме привет", принято ставить после "going to" цель передвижения, допустим "туда", если не имеется в виду фразальное будущее. (См также "voy a" в испанском). То есть сказали бы наверное "I am going to my mom, to say hello" (to her).
То, что вы имеете в виду, произносится где то между "бытщ" и "бэтщ", где то может и около "битщ" но всегда коротко. То, что там действительно написано, произносится "биич", тоесть растянуто и с очень явным "и". Ошибится трудно если вы эти слова когда либо в правильном произношении слышали.
https://www.duolingo.com/comment/1880157$comment_id=1880992 This one might be intended to be "It rains on us."
We just get responses for it daily -- people are befuddled as to what does this sentence mean.
P.S. A further clarification -- in my view, we should identify not only those sentences that are flat out wrong grammatically, but also those that make little sence in English to begin with, and thus lead to the frustration on the learners' part when they grapple with possible (and nonsensical) translations.
If you set yourself the task of removing all of the absurd sentences from Duolingo you're going to have to do a lot of work. Also, I've always thought that encountering absurd sentences along the lines of "Their octopi are entirely naked" was part of the fun of Duolingo. But then perhaps I've just watched too much Monty Python.
I absolutely agree on the value of these quirky sentences that you indeed have to translate accurately -- they help to build you to build up your vocabulary!! Which NOT to say, however, that every such sentence devised by Duolingo is guaranteed to be 100% success hit.
So, again, in my view there is a practical difference between the sentences when can be translated relatively unequivocally (tu oso bebe cerveza, or somos tortugas come to mind ;) ), and those that just stump and frustrate the user.
We're not a boot camp, and not a cram school. We have a choice of methods. If we can teach the same words to the user while making it A) a light-hearted, positive experience or B) random and frustrating, why by not all means try to always deliver A)? That's what I mean.
I think some of the sentences are introduced on purpose, to make the person not grasp the meaning, but actually have to translate the sentence in pieces. From the point of view of learning a language that is not necessarily a bad thing, because it prevents the user from "cheating" (ie simply guessing what the sentence would be in Russian from understanding a few words). If you have contact to the devs I'd go ask them whether sentences like that are deliberate or not.
Jenna Maroney thinks this sentence is correct. ;)
According to the Oxford English dictionary, "use to" is correct here, but only because the auxiliary very "do" is being used:
'Except in negatives and questions, the correct form is "used to": "we used to go to the cinema all the time", not "we use to go to the cinema all the time". However, in negatives and questions using the auxiliary verb "do", the correct form is "use to", because the form of the verb required is the infinitive: "I didn’t use to like mushrooms", not "I didn’t used to like mushrooms".' http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/use?q=use+to
I see what they mean about usage: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=didn%27t+use+to%2C+didn%27t+used+to&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdid%20not%20use%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cdid%20not%20used%20to%3B%2Cc0 It's all rather a silly debate really, given that pronunciation is identical whichever way it's spelt.
you should add never used to it https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=didn%27t+use+to%2Cdidn%27t+used+to%2Cnever+used+to&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cdid%20not%20use%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cdid%20not%20used%20to%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cnever%20used%20to%3B%2Cc0