Translation:I put in a lot of butter.
Shouldn't the english translation have a preposition added in somewhere? "I put on a lot of butter" or " I put a lot of butter on"?
I would agree the preposition should be on but apparantly it was supposed to be in?
There is no object in this phrase, it's a context thing. Maybe it's about cake or something. "You mean the cake? Yeah, I put butter in [it]."
Doesn't seem to be the preferred translation, though, since "in" wasn't among the answer options for me.
25/09/17 and it's definitely not fixed. I've seen both JP>EN and EN>JP in my review today, and both are missing a necessary preposition.
Needs "in," and "put a lot of butter in" is a dangling participle, so should be "i put in a lot of butter," or more colloquially "i used a lot of butter [in the recipe]"
There is nothing gramatically wrong with dangling participles. You have been lied to be prescriptivists.
I wouldn't say there's nothing wrong about them, even as anti-prescriptivist as I am. They can be confusing, so there are usually better choices available if you want to be clear.
But this also isn't a dangling participle. It's not even a participial phrase. "Putting a lot of butter in" would be a participial phrase.
An example of a dangling participle would be something like "Putting a lot of butter in, the cake was going to be delicious." -- The thing which the participle "putting" is supposed to modify, that is, the person baking the cake, does not occur in the sentence.
The thing which makes dangling participles confusing is that they end up sounding like they're attached to a different noun from what was actually intended. So in the example above, it sounds a bit like the cake is putting a lot of butter into... itself? -- until you realise that it's an inanimate object and that makes no sense.
Sometimes this can be a bit funny. "Flying over the African landscape, the elephant herd looked majestic."
Dangling participles are only wrong from the point of view that you want language to be clear -- for poetic reasons, they're often acceptable.
The prescription against dangling participles assumes people can only parse sentences robotically and without context, and in my opinion it's difficult to write a sentence with one that's so ambiguous an average reader can't figure it out.
But looking at the comments here, (even though as you correctly say, this isn't a dangling participle) maybe I'm wrong, because I never thought I'd see so many people stymied by putting a lot of butter.
In an effort not to be too literal, I said "used" instead of "put". It wasn't accepted.
I wrote "I applied a lot of butter" and got it wrong, although that seems like a much more concise translation than, "I put a lot of butter", which sounds like phrase from Paula Dean's kitchen.
入れる means "to put in" or "include". Of course if you put a lot of butter into a cake, I suppose you have "applied" a lot of butter in some sense, but that doesn't seem quite natural.
Wherever context would make it obvious. Probably something like a cake or cookies?
What does たくさん modify, butter or put in? Wouldn't たくさん バター make more sense?