I see "we are going to find/discover it" is accepted, but not "we are going to find it out"... to me, "find out" is closer to "discover" than "find". Both imply you are searching for something you didn't know/have previously, whereas "find" implies it is something you previously knew/had, but lost. Takers?
Just to add something, Phrasal verbs are not that easy for people who speak spanish (at least not for me). For example the verb find is encontrar, meanwhile find out is averiguar. When you add on, up, down, off... changes completely the meaning of the verb T.T
I think it's at least better than having dozens of meanings applied just to the basic word. At least you know which meaning is meant because of the appended preposition.
Not me. I can look for and find a bus station I have never been to. To me, 'find it out' is wordy. IMO, if I am looking for a physical object I 'find it' or if information I may 'find out.'
I found that the less you synonym-ize/inject similar sentiments, and just translate the verb its asking, you'll be right more often than not.
Dholman, "find out" is not synonymous with "discover." Example in English: "We are going to find the buried treasure, because I have the old map!" You could substitute "discover" for "find," but not "find out." That would be used more for discovering secrets, or plots, or what is going on - those are the types of things one might ask about, to "find out." Hope that helped.
Can anyone tell me which phrasing is more common: "Lo vamos a descubrir." or "Vamos a descubrir lo." The latter seems like what I have heard the most when traveling in Central and South America, but that may just be because that's the way I end up phrasing things (and therefore recognizing them more easily) as a result of my English point of reference. I always start out saying " Voy a ..." and by then it's too late to start with "Lo".
Both are correct. With that being said, when my father speaks (Who is mexican) he will often times attach the direct/indirect object pronoun to the end of an infinitive when talking in an informal setting, but do the usual SOV placement when talking in a formal setting. I have no idea if that is just a habit of his or has a meaning though.
I wonder why "figure it out" isn't accept here. I'm not a native English speaker, but I thought it had the same meaning as "discover"/"find out".
That is an entirely distinct form of discovery.
Quite literally Des-Cubrir means "to take the cover off", to find what is hidden (the same root idea as Dis-Cover in English). Therefore the word has a meaning closer to finding something that was either unknown or hidden from you before by removing an obstruction. That obstruction can be real or metaphorical.
To figure something out is referring to a logical process (literally "doing the mathematical figuring"), while one can discover something through an applied rational process, you can also do so by walking by it on the street, or by accident.
To "find out" something is a mild form of discovery in English, and like "figuring it out", it could work as a translation, but not always.
Why not...."We are going to UNCOVER it." Since "cubrir" means "to cover" and "des" reverses the meaning..... Like "We are going to uncover the the sleeping child by taking off his blanket. I look forward to a reply....
Descubrir can mean "uncover", so without context you are technically correct, though i think it means "uncover" as in to "find something out".
I agree "uncover" it is also correct. Furthermore, that definition has been used repeatedly in this course.
"We shall discover it" is obviously not the same as "We will discover it" in English?
Pontus, the Duo-owl is just a computer that does a pretty good job of matching language meanings or translations, but won't have every nuance of English programmed into it. Thus, few people (probably only those who would use "thus"!) will understand the fine differences in using "shall" and "will." Duo accepts either "will" or "is going to," so leave "shall" to the English grammarians for these lessons! ;-)
And even if u get lost and stumble upon something else it still counts....ask colombus
This is a suggestion and would warrant the use of the imperative form: "Lo descubramos."
Is the last letter of "descubrir" really pronounced like the "J" in "Jacques"? Because I don't hear an "r" sound in there at all..
It's still a rolled 'r' but it doesn't have a following voiced sound (or a vowel) to lean on, so it's spoken voiceless itself, which makes it sound a bit like the Spanish /j/.
May I know the real difference between the placement of "lo" in the beginning and end?
There's not much difference. I feel that lo in the front puts a little more focus on the object, and if attached to the back, the focus is more on the action itself.
- Nadie lo tiene que saber. - Nobody has to know it.
- Nadie tiene que saberlo. - Nobody has to know.
But the difference is negligible. It mostly comes down to personal preference. What's important is that attaching the object pronouns to the back only works on certain verb forms: infinitive (descubrirlo), the present participle (descubriéndolo), and imperative forms (descúbrelo et al.)
The lo is important here. It's the object, the "it" that we're going to discover. "Vamos a descubrir" would only translate to "We are going to discover."
Descubrir is more along the lines of "discover", finding something for the first time.
There is also no actual "going" involved here. You can translate the "vamos a" part either as "let's" or "we are going to", but not both.
I see, encontrar would be the choice for 'find' Lo vamos a encontrar. My opinion is that Duo has far too many sentences that are simply not good examples of daily, typical speech. 'We are going to discover it' is another example of that.