Charger means 1) to load, 2) to charge (up), i.e., a battery, 3) inflate, 4) charge (at) in the sense of attack, 5) to overload. It is not used in relation to charging a fee or anything about a price. Duo's use of such a sentence misleads English speakers into thinking it is an inquiry about a price. It is not.
For charger, I'll refer you to http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/charger/14622. As noted there, to charge (money) would be "faire payer". As far as the English "charge" in the sense of accusing someone, the French would probably use inculper: http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais-anglais/inculper/42351
Not sure why it says that. If you look at the definition, charger is intransitive when it means "to charge" in a military (or violent) sense, so you have to use a preposition if you're specifying an object. http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/french-english/charger
I know this message tom which I'm replying is 4 years old, but I also thought that the audio sounded like "cherche".
A situation, group or individual can be charged or even highly charged which means it is loaded with emotion.
An electrical circuit or device can be charged which means it is loaded with electricity.
An individual or group may be placed in charge which means they are loaded with responsibility, authority or both so as to deal with a set of conditions or objectives.
An individual or group may choose to charge (attack) a figurative or literal objective when they are loaded with determination, energy and usually with little, apparent regard for any inherent danger. This can be applied to companies trying to increase market share or military maneuvers.
An individual, group or institution can be charged or have charges laid against them, when they are loaded with assumed guilt, by other parties or institutions. In criminal situations it is a government agency that lays the charges.
A person or group can charge their weapon or drinking glass which means they they load or fill it.
A person or group can place an explosive charge somewhere which means they have loaded some point with explosives in a condition, and usually with the intention, to be detonated.
And, of course, charge means to require payment of some kind.
But, as bonnie.sjoberg has pointed out in her post charge is never used to refer to loading or filling a truck.
The procedure is: Gentlemen, charge your glasses. Then, after a suitable interval, a toast is proposed. In circumstances where language like that is being used, the toast will generally be pretty formal such as a toast to the guest of honor or the Queen etc.
Unless you travel in circles where toasts to the Queen are a regular feature, you probably won't have need for that sort of usage.
Il charge quoi has nothing to do with money. "Charge" is one of the faux amis. http://french.about.com/od/vocabulary/a/fauxamis-c.htm http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french-english/charger/14622
I have encountered charger, or a variation, many times and in nearly all cases the translation has been a variation of the rather ambiguous 'to charge.' Now in is very vague statement, 'charges' is WRONG and only LOAD is correct. Really, the more I use Duolingo, the less I like it.
Yes, the verb "charger" in french also means charge : "He charges his phone" = "il charge son téléphone" is acceptable. ", "The bull charged at him" = "Le taureau l'a chargé" ;"Charge!"="Chargez!"; "Charles in charge"="Charles s'en charge". However it's a bit difficult when money is concerned: "fees and charges" ="Les frais et les charges" but "To be charged a fine" becomes "se prendre une amende".
"What is he charging" is the usual way of saying it. "He charges what?" might be used after a statement that sounds unbelievable or unlikely, like "He's charging his garden spade!"
I think that word order in English would be used only to emphasise the word "what", for example if someone had said that he was charging something which would normally be charged, like a single use battery. Another person might then say in amazement, "He's charging WHAT?" But that word order is not usual in English.
Click the sound button for each of them. You should be able to tell the difference. It's much more apparent than something like the difference between le and les
The confusion is how literally we are supposed to translate some of these sentences. There are idioms introduced on a regular basis in Duo, and I'm tempted sometimes to choose a better-sounding, rather than a literal translation. Out of context "How much does he charge?" sounds better than "What does he charge?". Unless, of course, we are talking about someone with a collection of devices that need charging. Or someone with a collection of trucks that need loading. :)
No, the point is to learn how to put words and, above all, meanings together.
It doesn't really matter to know a long list of words in a language if you do not know how to combine them to make the sense you intend.
And most words come with different meanings depending on the situation. What learning a language is about is to know when each meaning is the correct one, and to see the meaning of the whole, not only of each word.
Part of this is to be able to use idioms, and to know how to translate between them. All languages are filled with idioms and standard phrases that are important to know in order to really master the language and to understand it well. So you really do need to know how to say the idioms you know from your native language in a new one, and how to use and understand idioms from the learnt language(s). Both ways are equally important.