Would "can you repeat yourself?" be an acceptable answer? English usually wouldn't leave out an object after "repeat".
I can't imagine saying "can you repeat yourself" - more likely "can you repeat that?"
Just to second Theron126: to me, "to repeat oneself" means to keep saying the same thing over and over again despite the fact that information has already been conveyed: "You keep repeating yourself!". I can't possibly imagine asking for this.
it is not needed, there are hidden insinuations in russian as to objects that are ambiguous in translation.
I wonder if there is a mod on English being culturally more polite. A direct translation would be "Can you repeat?" but a better way to say it would "Can you repeat that please" or "Please repeat that"
Or "Would you be so kind as to say that again?" It is really hard to stop if you consider that English objectively uses periphrastic constructions an order of magnitude more often that Russian—and also Russian uses imperatives more often than not.
We do understand that but prefer to stick to the option that is easier to translate back. When you are given an exercise to translate the sentence into Russian you translate the sentence you can see at the top of the page.
I'm on the app and it has been quite some time since I've been promoted to translate anything from English to Russian. Are such prompts less frequent at this stage or am i missing something? They were very valuable when i had them in earlier lessons.
I understand what you're saying about setting limits. It's just that "Can you repeat?" is not decent English. What the sentence appears to mean is, "Can you repeat that?". The lack of context makes it unclear what is to be repeated. In English, such sentences almost invariably mean, "Can you say that again?" but in context of a dialog, "Can you repeat that?" is clearly understood to mean a request to say something over again.
It would be rare for the repeated "thing" to be something other than words. If it's not words, then English would probably say something like, "Can you do that again?" - and once more with the "that" attached.
With transitive verbs like "repeat", English expects a direct object. Such verbs usually sound weird without a direct object.
So I find myself in partial disagreement that "Can you repeat?" enables a better understanding of Russian, since it's not an English phrase we'd use. It's better to understand that "Can you repeat that?" drops the Russian equivalent of "that", for purposes of developing good idiom in both languages.
... for purposes of developing good idiom in both languages.
Omitting "that" in English is bad English idiom.
Including some form of "that" in this particular Russian sentence is apparently bad Russian idiom.
In developing good idiom in both languages, one has to understand both the inclusion in English and the omission in Russian.
While omitting "that" in the English translations is a literal translation of the Russian (showing how the idiom works in Russian), it's effectively bad translation because it teaches bad English idiom.
I don't understand why the moderators are having such a problem understanding this issue. There are numerous other exercises where the omission/inclusion of certain words happens, and we students simply have to learn the idiom.
In another exercise in this module, "Простите, можете повторить ещё раз, медленно?" is translated by Duo as "Sorry, can you repeat THAT once again, slowly?"
That's the same exact phrase, with two different English translations. Omitting "that" in the current exercise but including "that" in the other exercise seems highly inconsistent, especially the omission is bad English idiom.
Hm, really? I easily changed it. It should work now.
Though I can now expect users to complain that a perfectly literal "Можете это повторить?" is not accepted.
I don't understand why the moderators are having such a problem understanding this issue.
We don't. We just can't fix the official translation; it's "hard-coded" in. What we can do is to add alternative translations, and "Can you repeat that" is accepted (and has been for quite some time).
P.S. As for my previous comment, apparently I need some irony indicator as it seems to fall on deaf ears for some.
Hmm... Do we have different permissions? Or have they changed it? I was unable to change the default translations in the past -- let me play with it again.
conjugated verb + infinitive.
most languages do it like that. Can (you) to repeat
After "can you repeat" there needs to be an additional word. Repeat is not a verb that can stand on its own in English (even if the Russian doesn't require an additional word).
Although I am not a native speaker of English I feel that you are right and that "can you repeat this" should be accepted. It is possible to have a phrase "listen and repeat", e.g. in a language course, without an explicit object, but then the following direct speech would implicitly be the object.
That very much depends on the context.
You are right that if this were a request to repeat a sentence/question etc. then "to repeat" would typically be a transitive verb and it would sound much more natural with a direct object: Can you repeat it/that?
However, as you can see e.g. here, this is not the only meaning of that verb -- or of Russian "повторить", which is identical. You could be asking for a repetition of some action, e.g. you might be coaching somebody, trying to drill some skill into that person. Then mere "Сan you repeat?" is perfectly fine; check the second meaning in the dictionary; in this use the verb can be intransitive.
And as I said, Russian "повторить" covers all these meanings.