Translation:Birds were singing in the morning.
The second kanji in Sebastian's sentence is 音 (おと), meaning sound or noise.
Can someone explain how this is part continuous tense in the translation without "de imashita" appearing? Also how on earth am i supposed to know the birds are the subject? I translated this as "I made a bird's sound in the morning".
I don't think it's a good idea to be translating words that are in the active voice in Japanese into the passive voice in English, because it will really throw you off when you get to actual passives in Japanese. The verb する is very versatile (jisho lists as many as 13 different meanings) and here it means something like to be perceptible. So the subject in the Japanese sentence are not the birds at all, it's actually こえ. The birds merely modify the voice by means of a の phrase. Though of course the voices of birds were perceptible doesn't sound very natural in English.
It could probably be translated as "the birds sang in the morning", so its not strictly past continuous
There's a が particle (which usually means subject marker or as I like to call it "identifying marker" ). Note that the verb する is used in a broader way not restricted to "to make" or "to do" (or at least not in the strictest way). About the translation, note that when translating any language, a word-by-word is usually a terrible approach. Each language has its ways of saying things, which sometimes are the same in other languages and some other aren't. I could give you many examples, but since this is the Japanese course, the Japanese language, for example, uses the continuous form in ways English doesn't as in "三年前この会社で働いています。" or "どうしてご両親と住んでいるのよ?" The verbs "はたらく" y "すむ", work and live, respectively, usually takes the - ている form. Hope it helps.
Jsho translated suru also as "to be sensed (noise)" so : "the sing of birds is heard"
English present tense can be either - I read, or I am reading. In Japanese, people often avoid translating present tense as I am reading because others get upset because present tense is not continuous and they insist that verb -ing should be reserved exclusively for the continuous verb form. The problem is that often in English translation it sounds a lot more natural to use this so-called continuous form for present tense but if we do we risk confusing others who are learning and/or incurring the wrath of translation "purists" ; ) In answer to your other question - birds are not the subject/focus of the sentence - birds' voices are. We know this because that whole phrase とり の こえ (tori no koe) is followed by が (ga).
If it was "I made bird sounds", it would be 鳥の声●を●しました。(possible to add 私が or 私は to the beginning)
As someone already told above, suru is used for sense phrases as 音(sound)がする - it sounds(?) Or more like "I can hear something" maybe. 匂い(a smell)がする - it smells 寒気(feeling of cold)がする - I feel cold etc.
Totally agree! I think birds chirping is more widely used than birds singing.
Maybe the Japanese have a different word for "chirping", so using it here would be incorrect?
I would personally use ないた instead of what was used here. Just because I'm familiar with that.
By the way 泣くis to cry, 鳴く is to chirp, tweet, ring, sound, etc.
No, because the Japanese says that birds were singing. There is nothing about the speaker HEARING birds singing. For that the verb would be kikimashita.
する can mean "to sense something" as well. 「このスープはいやなにおいがする。」- "This soup smells disgusting"
する is a very versatile verb that often has nouns attached to it, changing what it means/how it is translated. Some examples - べんきょう する、りょこう する、とり の こえ が する - benkyou suru means literally to do study but we translate it as "to study". Similarly, ryokou suru means to do travel but it is translated to travel. tori no koe ga suru literally, means something more like "birds voices are sounding" but of course that is not a natural sounding English translation so instead we translate it as birds are singing. Hope this helps.
That seems right. I'm not sure why the English is past progressive when the Japanese seems to be past.
Yes, it should be. It marked "birds sang" wrong as well. I've reported it.
EDIT: "the bird sang" is still not accepted on 11/27. Reported it again.
Because the bird is not the subject the bird's voice or the birds' voices are.
Assuming you mean "chirping", it should be fine, especially since the verb here can't be translated literally.
I'm not a native user, but according to Jisho, no. 声 just means voice or, in this context, a bird's singing or hooting. It translates "squawk" as the onomatopoeia ぎゃあぎゃあ. Also, not sure if you're under that impression or not, but just in case: 声 isn't a verb, it's a noun. The verb here is する.
Which word means "sing"? There is only the noun "voice of bird" tori no koe.
In this sentence - koe ga shimasu. But more commonly nakimasu - cos a bird's cry is how they sing.
Is this how a native Japanese would say it, or is there a more direct verb for chirping/animal singing they would use?
鳴く（なく） is used to mean "to sing" for birds, or more generally "to make sounds" for animals.
No, it doesn't. There is no implied わたし は here - とり の こえ as marked by が is the subject of this sentence. Literally, the bird's voice or the birds' voices "sounded" in the morning. eg. like a bell sounding.
how can you tell if it's plural or singular? 'a bird' was marked as wrong.
You can't, so if "a bird" wasn't accepted and you think the rest of the sentence is correct, you should report it.
"In the morning, birds sang" was accepted. (I'm pretty sure it wasn't accepted before, so I figured I'd mention it.)
This 声がする threw me off and I consulted my Japanese Grammar Dictionary. As it turns out this usage of suru is described as "S.t. is perceived by s.o.'s non-visual senses (feel, smell, hear)" and there are some examples provided
子供達の声がした。 - I heard children's voices.
私は寒気がします。 - I feel a chill.
この魚は変な味がしますね。 - This fish tastes funny, doesn't it?
I guess, in all these examples 私は,or some other ...は, is in order as it is always someone who is making/perceiving 〜が as voice, chill or taste.
Why is it "tori no" instead of "tori ha"... Isnt "birds" the topic of the sentence?
tori no koe (followed by ga) is the topic of the sentence - the birds' voices. GA indicates that tori no koe is the topic of the sentence. Asa merely indicates when the action happened - in the morning.
けさ is almost universally translated as "this morning", but here only "in the morning" is accepted.
There is nothing meaning "a lot of" in the Japanese sentence. And the Japanese sentence is not a mere statement of existence regarding bird noises; the Japanese sentence has 鳥の声（とりのこえ）, or "bird noises/sounds" as the subject, but because "Bird noises sounded" is an awkward way to phrase the English sentence, "Birds sang" is a more preferred translation.
According to previous comments on this page, うたいます is for when humans sing, not birds.
You may like it, but that doesn't make it an accurate direct translation. The sentence just says "bird(s)", it doesn't name any special kind of bird. Furthermore, to crow in the morning seems to be the verb 時を作る (ときをつくる).
Trying to translate what is is said from straight Japanese is incorrect. Because I did Bird's voice, and not Singing; Which is not given.
The translation must be "I heard birds charping in the morning" or " I heard birds sound in the morning." In Japanese translation by the sentense, 朝、鳥が鳴くのを聞いた。 But if sentense was Birds were singing in the morning. Japanese traslation will be 朝、鳥が鳴いていました。
It's not I heard birds chirping in the morning or I heard birds sound in the morning. The Duo translation is accurate. Japanese is a different language - it often doesn't say things the same way as you would in English or other languages. But just because the Japanese says something in a way that we wouldn't in our own language doesn't mean that we have to translate the Japanese into a nonsensical sentence in our own language. To me the meaning is quite logical - start with the verb - the verb tells us something happened in the past, but when? Go to the start of the sentence where there is a time word 朝 that tells us that something happened in the morning, then look for the subject marked by が - the subject of the sentence is こえ, but whose voice? 鳥の the bird/s' voice/s. Now as it is the birds' voices were doing in the morning doesn't make much sense, does it? So we need to think about how we know Japanese works to understand what it is saying so that we can translate it into a sentence that makes sense, conveys the meaning of the Japanese and uses natural sounding English. Now anyone who has been studying Japanese for a while knows that it is very common for Japanese to have compound verbs using a noun and します or to use します with various nouns to express actions - this tells us that します is very versatile and doesn't necessarily only mean 'do', its "meaning" can change to suit the situation. In this situation I would suggest that it makes sense to translate します as to sound as in the birds' voices were sounding in the morning - like a bell sounding for instance. And if the birds' voices were sounding then what were the birds doing? Why they were singing. So it is perfectly logical and accurate to translate the sentence as the birds were singing in the morning. It conveys the meaning of the Japanese. It shows that the original meaning of the Japanese is understood AND it translates the Japanese into natural sounding English that makes sense.
Utau is used for people singing. Naku is used for people and animals crying, AND for birds singing specifically - because a bird's cry is how a bird sings it's different from human crying and other animals crying/whining/whimpering.