Translation:We are going to have a coffee together.
why is it "On va prendre..." and not "Nous allons prendre..."? is "On va" = "Nous allons"?
Is "On va" more commonly used than "nous allons"?
Yes, it's more commonly used, since it's shorter and easier to conjugate.
ok, now I'm a bit confused. I'm trying very hard to understand and absorb all the subtleties of the language and thought I had this one figured out per a previous discussion thread. I understood from an earlier comment on another post that "on" meaning "we" was closer in meaning to the English "one" rather than to the English "we," though we/you/one are used when speaking in generalities, such as "one could get there by bus or train," "we could get there by bus or train," and "you can get there by bus or train." I thought that when speaking about "we" specifically, such as here, you have to use "nous."
Everything you said is correct! The only thing is, french natives prefer to use in their day-to-day informal language "on" rather than "nous", because it's simpler and the conjugation is also easier. Check http://www.assistancescolaire.com/eleve/4e/francais/reviser-une-notion/utiliser-le-pronom-indefini-on-4fpr33 if you need more info.
So you wouldn't really do this in writing, correct? Thanks for the clarification.
I discussed this with my wife (who is a native speaker of Quebecoise French, and also has a university degree in French language and literature) and she thinks that the speaking/writing difference is pretty much artificial. It's a difference between casual speech and formal speech, and the "speaking vs writing" issue comes up because until very recently (within the last two decades) most people didn't do very much casual or informal writing, before the Internet and texting and so forth. So you could say, "Yes, that's right, 'on' is for speech and 'nous' is for writing," because most people just didn't write all that much in a very casual, informal way. You wrote for business, and for school; you wrote letters, but most of us still write more formally in a letter--even if we're just writing to Grandma--than we do on, say, Facebook.
So you would use "on" in conversation, and on Facebook, and in texts (where I frequently see it abbreviated to "n"), and in a quick note to your friend or your spouse--but you would use "nous" not only in things like work reports or school papers, but when you're making an oral presentation or giving a speech (unless you're specifically trying to sound casual and "folksy," like political campaign speeches often do).
Ah okay, I guess I sort of mentally slot things like text messages into the speech category without thinking about it. Though, come to think of it, I don't know where I would put something like this.
I tend to put things like message boards and forum posts in the "casual/informal" category myself--I have to try to be clearer than I would in a text to my wife, because she actually knows me, can fill in a lot of the gaps through our shared experiences, etc., but I'm still not writing like I did in my thesis.
I think "grabbing a coffee" is slang (although 'grab' is often a fine translation of 'prendre').
Because "grab" is not the correct translation. In French you use "prendre" as in English you say "to have a coffee". Prendre means take, not grab.
You have taken a common expression and moved it into the realm of extremely familiar speech. "Prendre un café" = to have a coffee.
Hmm, on the basis of how other exercises have gone, I figured it would accept "We will have a coffee together." I know it's not technically future tense, but other exercises have taken "will" for "going to."
This sentence is a statement "we are going to have a coffee together". It is not an invitation or encouragement in the form of "let's go have a coffee" (Allons prendre un café).
And the difference between "having coffee together" and "having A coffee together" is...?
Depending on the language and the region, the answer may vary.
In French, saying "un café" means they're going to have only one coffee, whereas, "du café" means some, which is unspecified amount, could be one; could be more; could be less.
In English, it depends on whichever is commoner in a region.
Some people say "a coffee" and other would say "coffee" when they both mean the same thing.
In this sense, there is no real difference. The translation is accepted with or without "a".
I am convinced that "We are going to take a coffee together" is a pretty translation. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this translation?
In English we don't "take" a beverage, we have a beverage, get a beverage, or drink a beverage.
"We are going for a coffee together" was just marked incorrect , for the life of me I don't understand why Duo doesn't accept that translation....please could someone explain why is it wrong?
Please could you answer this one Sitesurf?
It is not wrong. Some people actually prefer very tight translations to "facilitate" reverse translations. You have nailed the meaning of it and it is accepted.
I don't think so, unless you state at what time. "We're having coffee together" sounds like the present tense. I think, "We're having coffee together at 5pm" would express what you meant in your translation.
The French use "on" very frequently as a substitute for we and they. We don't use it that often in English which is why it sounds awkward.
"On parle français en France," for example, can be translated as "They speak French in France."
The French "on" is often used as "we" meaning the generic "we". It can also be used to refer to the generic "they" or the generic "you".
The English translation here uses 'have' because that's the common English idiom. But the most commonly used French form is prendre - to take. It's also what is used for ordering food and drink. "Je prends un café" -"I take a coffee" is what you use when you want to order a coffee. So while 'On va avoir un café ensemble' does literally translate to we are going to have a coffee together, it is not on the whole the idiom used in French speaking countries. So prendre is the verb that should be used.
This is a mistake that francophones sometimes make. A francophone will not use "avoir" in the sense of "to consume" something. But "prendre" (which learners fixate on as "take") means "to have" in the sense of to eat/drink/consume something (food, medicine, etc). So best get used to the idea that "prendre" has different meanings that are influenced by the context.
- Je prends un café = I'm having a coffee
- Il prend ce livre-là = he is taking that book
- J'ai un café = I have a coffee (it's right here in front of me) does not mean I'm drinking it.
Is there anything wrong with, "we go to have coffee together" ?
prendre is infinitive, right? It is highlighting "go to" as incorrect, but the only thing I could think is wrong is that I didn't include an article.
You have missed the notion of the near future. "On va prendre un café" = we are going to have a coffee. The "going to" + infinitive means that the action will happen in the very near future. It does not mean "go to" at all.
I wrote "We're having a coffee together" because future is implied in that sentence. But it didn't count :(
Tried "we will have a coffee together" and "we'll have a coffe together" Surely those must work too. Why does it have to be "we are going to have a coffee together" I don't get it.
We will and we'll should work. Synonyms for going to. Exact same meaning. Also how would the translation be different for nous prendons?
We're having a coffee together is also present tense, so it's not close enough. And We will/We'll is closer to Nous prendrons un café ensemble or on prendra un café ensemble. We are going to have is a more direct translation as well as being a natural English phrase with no ambiguity about it being in the future.
There is no confusion over sharing a single cup of coffee. It would not be understood that way. If you are really going to share a single cup of coffee, you could say "on va partager un café".
when prendre is take and when is have? there is nothing more frustrating than to learn the wrong way because DL sentence writer is capricious.
There is nothing capricious about it. It is a matter of context. Please visit this link and look at all the possible meanings of "prendre". In the context of food, it means "to have" (to eat, drink, consume). In the context of medicine, it means "take". https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/prendre/62856
The article "un" is generally taken to be an indefinite article, i.e., a (or) an, not a numeral. Using the most natural expression in English does not say things like "I am going to have one coffee".
Present progressive "we are having a coffee together" not only conveys an action in progress right now, but also the same idea as the "going to the future. "
What's wrong with "We are going to have a coffee"? "Together" was not specified in French why should it be specified in English?
If I am speaking to a random merchant or person on the street in France, will I sound stuffy or odd if I use "nous" to refer to we instead of "on"? If that's the case, shouldn't duo be emphasizing that option a lot more?
Whay is "We are going to take a coffee together "? This is a way to say it in english and closer to the literal translation.
You must be English native speakers only. All the neo-latin languages require the articles in front of nouns, while in English sometimes you use it and sometimes don't.
The thing was that the English translation required an article: We are going to have coffee together was marked incorrect. I understand that the French translation would require an article, I don't understand why they'd force an article on you in the English translation.
In this case it is clear (in French) we are talking about ONE coffe. There is the indefinite article "un" which specifies that we are going to have "a coffe". The problem with English is that sometimes you can skip the article and the sentence is perfectly correct and makes sense, but if you are translating from French you have to recognise the different cases. If in French there is "du café" in English it can be "some coffee" or just "coffee", but if there is "un café" then it means "a coffee".
Alright, I thought it was more of a "let's go drink something together after work" rather than a "I'm going to have exactly one cup of coffee with you and then go home". The lack of context isn't helping.
The original translation insisted on using "a coffee" in English with the strict intention of facilitating the reverse translation. It does not allow for how English is actually spoken nor consider that English speakers do not concern themselves with Duo's statistics for how sentences are translated. It is common in English to drop the "a" here and it is accepted with and without it. Just remember that in French, you must use an article.
"We are going to have coffee together" is perfectly acceptable English and a perfectly fine translation of the French. You should report it if you get it again.
Plenty of people have said that in their dialect of English it is okay to say "have a coffee" (so I guess it is), but it is also okay to say "have coffee". To me "have a coffee" sounds weird, and I have a lot of coffee, so this is an expression I use frequently.
(I don't understand why people down-vote comments like "this is the way I say it". What, you don't believe me when I say that's how I say it? HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? It's very common for something to be standard in one form of English and yet sound very awkward in another.)
Yes, this is correct. French, much like English, has 2 simple ways of implying future actions: "I am going to drink coffee" (Je vais boire du café) and "I will drink coffee" (Je boirai du café).
The second form is a different verb conjugation, but the first is remarkably close to the English style of saying it.
The owl is correct though.
What you provided is 'future simple tense', whereas, the sentence duo asked to translate is in 'present continuous tense'.
Yes, 'be + going to + infinitive' has the meaning in future, but grammatically the sentence is not in future tense.
It is written that ''ensemble'' also means ''set'' . Why is it wrong to say ''We will take a coffee set'' ?
cos, it means 'set' when meaning collective objects together, as in a set of screwdrivers
Le contexte est tout. Context is everything. You must first understand what the sentence means (in French) before you can translate it correctly to English. It is true that "ensemble" (n) may mean a group or a set. But here, it is an adverb meaning "together".
yes! I wrote "We are going to GET (shown as an option for prende) a coffee SET (shown as an option for ensemble) Why is this incorrect?
If "ensemble" meant a coffee set, then "set" would be the noun and "coffee" would be the adjective describing the noun:
Un ensemble de café
Nobody says "have a coffee." It is always "have a cup of coffee"in my experience
I'm American, and when I lived in the US (from birth until two years ago), I heard "have a coffee" regularly.
You learn as much about how other English speakers employ the language as you do in learning a new one, huh?
In Australia, for example, we'd say "we are going to have" or "we're going for":
*a cup of coffee
Imagine trying to explain all of the variations to someone learning English!!
In my American English I would never say "have a coffee" and rarely say "have some coffee". But I "have coffee" quite often!
The others do not quite sound WRONG to me, just awkward.
That is true. I live in S. France and "On" is mostly used as " we". In the last few years, as in English, the formal "vous" in speach is less and less used, unless you speak to VERY old people. Even the German tourists, mostly speak informal, "Du" rather then " Sie". The world is getting friendlier. Being " OLD" I slowly get around with it.
Grammatically, yes, it should be that. Coffee is an uncountable noun, therefore you shouldn't use 'a' before it. However, in English we like to imply the container - a [glass of] water, two [spoonfuls of] sugars etc, so I'd say 'a coffee' is perfectly acceptable.
I would also say 'we are going to have coffee together' should be accepted too. In much the same way it implies you're all going to have a cup of coffee each. Unless, of course, you're buying one cup to share between all of you....
In different circumstances, "coffee" may be uncountable, e.g., "du café" or countable, e.g., "un café", i.e., a (cup of) coffee. Consider also "bread": as a general noun, "bread" is uncountable, but "un pain" = a loaf of bread. Other items are virtually always uncountable: riz, lait, eau, etc.
If it was "...a cup of a coffee", then it would be "On va prendre UNE TASSE de café ensemble."