"The boy eats lunch."
Translation:Băiatul mănâncă prânzul.
It said I was wrong when I put Baiatul mananca pranz but is that not also an acceptable sentence?
I think the answer "Pranzul" is "The lunch" and not just lunch right ? Cause i was wrong too with the same answer as yours !
Can someone please clarify this? I'm pretty sure I have written just 'prânz' somewhere in these practice lessons and have gotten them correct at times, while other times it has marked me incorrect.
i have the same feeling my guess is that was "at lunch=la prânz" with 'la' you drop the article, but i guess with food times you basically mean 'the' meal of that day (in morning/evening etc) Romanian in general often requires a companion word (a/the/at) even when English doesn't. you might not always see it, but it's always there is some form. and eating the lunch makes somehow more sense than eating a lunch.
Very confused! Lunch = pranz, the lunch = pranzul. Why was I marked wrong? Duolingo, please look at this sentence.
When adding the ul at the end (pranzul) it like when we did it for barbatul. Use it when the the phrasing "the lunch" makes sense in the sentence. "The man eats the lunch" is pranzul but "the man drinks juice at lunch" is pranz.
"The man eats the lunch" doesn't really work in English, unless you're referring to an actual event that happens to cater lunch, or another unusual scenario. Even then, it's a stretch. In most cases, you would say, "The man eats lunch" as well as "The man eats at lunch."
I'm no romanian expert, but in my head I like to think of prânzul etc as "his meal", although it's not a literal translation, so i think of it as something like "the boy eats his lunch" which makes more sence then "the lunch" in this kind of sentence.
From someone's comment on another question, i just learned that Romanians actually don't use this construction very often. Instead, they use the equivalent of "The boy ate for the afternoon."