Translation:I take walks in the park with her.
'Girlfriend' should also be accepted as a valid translation for 'Kanojo' in this sentence.
i think if you say watashi no kanojo, it means girlfriend. kanojo by itself with no context means she
It's not incorrect actually. ChrisBanci is absolutely right about there being absolutely no context from which to determine if the speaker is talking about their girlfriend or not so it should be assumed that kanojo simply means 'her' in this instance. When using kanojo the only way to determine what is meant is from context (what you and your friend/s have been talking about) and tone or the way in which the speaker says kanojo.
I like to compare it to a girl saying, "I'm hanging out with my girlfriend." Is she talking about her friend who is a girl or her close partner, especially these days? Context.
Assuming context in duolingo. That's funny. Sometimes it's "my" or "the".. sometimes "you" or "I"... when there is no context both options should be accepted. Besides, taking a walk in the park with your girlfriend sounds more natural than taking a walk in the park with "her". Who?!
With me would be 私と. This sentence says with her and the speaker (I) is implied - I walk with her.
I remember my teacher telling me about this, so I googled and came upon this:
For motion verbs like 散歩する, を indicates route. 公園を散歩します = walking through the park.
With で it's "walking in the park", while with に it's "walking to the park"
I believe this to be fairly accurate. Please correct me if its not.
With へ you're indicating that you're walking in the general direction of the park or towards the park, yes.
When the location is the background where the action of the verb happens, use で.
If you want to express the location or existence of something at a certain place (as well as movement TO that place), use に.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...
Do we need "o" (wo) because the sentence says "I take a walk in the park". Which makes walk the direct object?
If we used "de", will it now mean "I'm taking a walk in the park" or "I'm walking in the park"?
You are correct. "Sanpo suru" is a transitive verb in this case, and takes a direct object.
The literal translation would be "walk the park" rather than "walk in the park".
Some verbs are just like this in Japanese, but you will quickly get used to them after you hear the pattern a few times.
Except just take/walk, as opposed to taking/walking, which is present progressive, and a different conjugation.
same question walking in the park seems like it should take the locative particle, not the objective "を"...??
English should probably be "in the park" not at. Just like you don't swim at the pool
Not necessarily true, but I see what you're getting at.
Especially for public pools, you might use "at the pool" to refer to the entire recreational area around the pool, rather than just the body of water itself.
In this way, someone saying "I'll be swimming at the pool" means they will most likely be at a local public pool area.
To me, if they instead said "I'll be swimming in the pool," I would assume they are referring to a private pool, most likely on their own property.
It's a very subtle difference, but language can often be a game of nuance.
The English I speak prefers "at the park" as well as "at the pool" when referring to a general location
I agree with this - I might say "I'll meet you at the park" (presence) and I'd say "I'll walk in the park" (action), I don't think I'd ever hear anyone say "Let's walk at the park" it just sounds wrong. Maybe it's a regional thing - I'm from south England :)
My translation was "she and I go for a walk in the park," which I think sounds for fluid than the official translation "I take a walk in the park with her"
I said "I go on a walk with her..." and got in wrong. They said "For" instead of "On"
"I take a walk at the park" doesn't sound natural. More likely one would say "in the park". Also "take a walk" should be allowed.
を is the object particle and it is placed after the object of the sentence and before a verb to denote that what is before the を is the object of the sentence that the verb is acting upon. Hope that helps
Although taking that into account and translating the sentence literally to English makes it sound like you're "walking the park", like taking the park for a walk :P
In this instance (and also where you have birds flying in the sky) indicates that you are walking through the park - with birds it would be flying through the sky.
I translated it as "i take a walk in the park with her" instead of "I will take a walk in the park with her." There was no "with". I think it's kinda funny how often i know the Japanese translation, but have a hard time figuring out the word scramble.
Together (といっしよに) was not highlighted in yellow, although it is a completely new word...
と いっしょ に is not one word. いっしょ - together plus に makes it an adverb (how do they take a walk in the park?) Together. と - with
where does the "in" or "to" the park, come from? I take the "を" is showing the action done to the location, but I don't see how that is taken as "at/in" the park than "to" the park.
If you use に, it means to the park. if you use を, it means in or through the park.
する is the actual verb here, combined with a noun to make a verb-phrase of "do noun", する takes a direct object, and を is the object marker particle.
I assume its something about the sentence order and particles, but can anyone explain why "She goes for a walk in the park with me" isn't correct?
かのじょ (she) is not the subject of the Japanese sentence, but somebody is walking with かのじょ (her). The subject is omitted here, and without any other context the subject is probably わたし (I).
It's that I had to select the blocks otherwise I would have written, 'I am walking with her to(wards) the park', because of ni.
But ni goes with isshou, to mean "together". If it had meant "to the park", it would have been placed after kouen, not before it.
Would "かのじょとこうえんをさんぽします" be acceptable? I was taught that と used with people means "with ___". Is this correct?
I think your answer is correct. 一緒に means "together" and I think there is no change in the meaning if you omit the adverb here.
I said "I take a walk to the park with her" because of the に however it's not accepted as an answer. Would someone explain why this is wrong? Thanks.
The に is not after こえん (park), but after いっしょ (together), so it is indicating that "together" is the way, and not that "park" is the destination. The particle that is after こえん (so the one that indicates its function) is を, which indicates direct object. Here it goes a little away from the English way of expressing it, but as "park" is the direct object, it means that "the park" is "what you take a walk", or "what you stroll" (through). I hope it was understandable. These kinds of concepts can be kinda hard to express
Any reason why the future tense is not accepted here ? "I will go walking with her in the park " was not accepted. Should it be ?
I have a similar question. What about 'I will go take a walk in the park with her"?
Konnichiwa mina san. I got a right answer with: "in a park" instead of at. Now you know :)
It's not accepted because that is not what the Japanese says. In your "translation" She and I are the joint subject of the sentence ie. the ones doing the walking. If that were the case in the Japanese sentence then it would be 私 と かのじょは - She and I. If you read some of the comments in this thread several of them should be explaining the difference between と being used to mean 'and' and と being used to mean 'with'. When it means 'and' it is used with a list of nouns (2 or more) and と is placed between the nouns eg. わたしと 母と ちち - Me and Mum and Dad. When it means 'with' it is not used with a list and it follows the noun that the speaker is carrying out the action of the verb with - as in this sentence - かのじょ と いっしょに (together) WITH her. いっしょに need not be translated in the English - with already tells us that the speaker is walking with her, adding together would be overkill. So to re-cap - 私 is the implied subject, not わたし と かのじょ hence the correct translation can only be - I walk WITH her.....
I know perfectly well what this means, but I get it marked wrong every single time because it doesn't accept so many natural translations, whilst only accepting bizarre unnatural translations...
No, it doesn't work because it is incorrect. If it was her and I it would be かのじょ と わたしは - と means 'and' only when used with two or more people or items or things - like a list this AND this AND this. と means with when it follows a person as in this case かんじょと - there is is no list separated by と. Also in your suggestion 'Her and I' are the joint subject of the sentence ie. they are performing the action of the verb. In the original sentence the implied subject is わたし. There are bound to be multiple explanations of when と is translated as 'and' and when it is translated as 'with' in this discussion thread - might pay to scroll up and down and have a good read.
The Duo translation above does sound a little clunky - if you are a native English speaker and think it sounds odd then you should think up alternatives, report the faulty translation and suggest your own natural sounding ones instead.
Wow, pretty specific. I put "I go for walks in the park with her" said it was wrong, and should be "...a walk ..." not plural. But then here is says exactly that, but take instead of "go for" .... pretty lame.
Why Can't I say "I WILL take walks in the park with her"? :/ さんぽします is both, present and future. I'll take walks and I take walks
??? I put "???" because your sentence doesn't make sense - can you expound or make sure your sentence is all in English as it seems some words are not English at all?
いっしょに means together, but they meaning is already covered in the English translation by with (と), so it's not necessary to translate/include 'together' as well.
"She and I take walks in the park together" was accepted. Though not the typical way to phrase it, I'm still surprised.
It shouldn't have been accepted - for that to be correct she and I would have to be the joint subject of the sentence and would be written thus - 私とかのじょは
I said こうえんをさんぽします before and it was incorrect. Duolingo said it should be こうえんで. I'm confused now.
Of course it is wrong - I go on walks through the park with her together? What is together doing at the end of the sentence??? It doesn't make sense. No one would say this. 'with' already conveys the sense of "together" in the English and so together is not needed - also, it's just grammatically and syntactically incorrect English.
Do you think 'She takes walks in the park with me.' should be accepted?
the に makes いっしょ into an adverb. How are they walking through the park? Together.
The english conversion seems a little unnatural. In my opinion "I'm going for a walk in the park with (her/my girlfiend)" is how it naturally translates for me. And yet for consistency with other DuoLingo translations it would probably need to read "I will go" instead of "I'm (I am) going" (Present Continuous). What do you guys think?
We all get the general context, so it's no biggie. But getting errors by typing the translated sentence naturally on PC is a little frustrating.
With Google it translated like "I will walk in the park with my wife"...)
Google translate is not the best for Japanese. 11111 yen has turned into 10000 yen for a year.
This is strange. Why would you mark the place (the park) with an object marking particle and not the destination particle? (に or で).
Grammatically speaking, are you walking TO the park? As in, you perform the walking "upon" the park?
It indicates that you're walking through the park, as opposed to (に) to or in the park or (で) at the park.
'I do walks in the park with her' doesn't make sense. When else would you expect 'you used the wrong word' to be used?
It doesn't make grammatical sense, nor would any native English speaker ever say this. If Duo doesn't correct you when you are incorrect how do you propose that you ever learn what is and what isn't correct? Yes, you are learning Japanese but you are also learning to translate into syntactically and grammatically correct English. And yes, often Duo does insist on extremely questionable and even incorrect translations, one can only presume in order to "preserve" the meaning from the language that is being translated, but that is not the case here.
There are myriad things that we can have or take but not do. And there are myriad usages that can be argued to be understandable but are not exactly natural. As a language teacher you probably know the second point much better than I do.
You can go for a walk, take a walk, have a nap, have a shower but you can't have a walk or do a walk. It's a matter of syntax - how sentences are put together - different languages put sentences together differently. Just because the Japanese literally says "do a walk" doesn't mean that that will translate directly into syntactically correct and natural sounding English.
Well; that is a literal translation element by element. But in English that sounds a little like you're taking the park for a walk, right?
What's wrong with this sentence. "I go for walk together with my girlfriend at the park." かのじょと =with my girlfriend いっしょに=together with こうえんを= at/through the park さんぽします= to go for a walk. I really get frustrated!
There was discussion about it under the first comment here. In any case, if you believe that this translation should be accepted, report it (although it would be "I go for A walk")
No. It is not a possible translation - please read the comments below.
Is there some reason the present/future tense (I am taking a walk in the park with her) is inappropriate, or is Duo just confused again?
'Am taking' is not the present/future tense. It is the present continuous, and therefore is not accepted for just 'ます'.
For the same reason as the 'wa' particle is written as は, that's just how it is in Japanese
If it was with me then と would follow 私, but it doesn't - it follows かのじょ clearly indicating that the speaker is performing the action WITH HER.
If that much is "with her", why does it also have "i_shi yo u ni" (together)?
For emphasis. You know like how a double negative in many languages doesn't mean a positive sentence but rather a strong negative? : )
Nicely spotted! I guess in the case I thought about in English the redundancy is also used to emphasize the "togetherness"
I am no native, but I would say "issho ni" (without the extra "u") is redundant here. I think I have heard "together with you" used in English in some cases as well, so it doesn't seem so off to me