Translation:You cannot use a lot of money.
Agree, it has a similar connotation but "cannot" isnt the translation i would have gone with for this verb ending. to me, its more "may not"
It would be one thing if both were accepted to account for colloquial failings, but the fact that 'may not' isn't accepted is absurd and frankly incorrect.
I'd say it's more like 'you may not.' Which makes me think that they just made a grammatical errorin English. Confusing 'can' with 'may'
The reason cannot is a preferred translation is because of the grammatical structure of the Japanese sentence. いけません comes from the verb 行く (which if you remember, means to go). It's conjugated in the negative potential form. The potential form being いける (to be able to go), and the negative potential form being いけない (to be unable to go). The word いけない most frequently has the connotation of something being prohibited. It's a little like saying thats a "no go" in English. Sometimes, when translating into English, it may feel more natural to translate this type of command structure as "don't do..." but "you can't do..." is also a valid, if not more accurate, translation.
If something is prohibited, "may not" is more correct than "can not" in English. Cannot implies an impossibility, regardless of permission. "May not" implies a prohibition from performing the action.
"You cannot move faster than the speed of light. You may not drive faster than 75 miles per hour in this zone."
Disclaimer: I don't mean to nitpick here and we are all aware that "cannot" is used rather loosely in contemporary English, but...
Like nebu said, ～てはいけない means something is prohibited. Therefore, "don't do..." / "may not..." is much more accurate translation than "cannot..." - that would be the translation of ～できない.
してはダメです also works as "You cannot", but just to flesh it out a little, いけません is a way of saying, "Do not", as it would be written on a sign. This is pretty much synonymous with, "You cannot", so both should be right really. Alternatively, if you want to say, "Don't use a lot of money", as someone recommending an action to another, it can be put thusly: お金をたくさん使わないようにしてください。Hope that helps!
In general it's unusual to use polite forms of verbs in subclauses. The ます basically always goes on the verb at the end of the sentence, if it's a verb there. (Otherwise です will make things polite.)
Duolingo doesn't seem to want to teach plain forms of anything though. I wish more Japanese courses did teach plain from the beginning.
No, it wouldn't. Using a polite form like -masu in subclauses is grammatically incorrect.
Why isnt this a first person sentence? Couldnt this be a response to an invitation to go out to a bar or something. "I cant spend a lot of money"
Indeed the subject can be I depending on context. Just that the most probable situation is to remind the listener.
would spend be used differently to use? or does use mean spend in this context? use is not typically associated with money in my neck of the woods, it's always spend (unless talking about budgets)
You would use a different sentence to inform someone that you do not want them to spend a lot of money, versus that they are unable to spend a lot of money.
For the former, I would say something like "Please don't spend a lot of money".
Why can't the subject be 'I' instead of 'you'?
To those saying “cannot” is incorrect and should be “may not”......I disagree. If that ever was the case, I think it’s outdated by now. Hardly anyone I know says “you may not do this”. You sound like a square when you say it like that. Everybody says can’t. “Can I add 4 cups of paprika?” “No dude you can’t add 4 cups of paprika! That’ll taste like ❤❤❤❤!” So much more natural that way.
'Cannot' should be 使えない or 使うことはできない. On the other hand, 使ってはいけない is 'may not'.
"You cannot spend a lot of money." is correct, "You cannot spend much money." is not. Why?
Im confused why this sentence ends with いけます. Is that not "to go"? There is no reference to that in the sentence. Is it being used in a "to do" way like suru would normally be? :/
"....te wa ikemasen" can have various translations, including "cannot," none of them are literal. As "cannot" it does not indicate physical impossibility. It means that there is some reason the thing is not to be done.
I'm a native English speaker and it's unclear to me what "You cannot use a lot of money." means. I understand its literal meaning, but the literal meaning is so unusual, it seems much more likely that anyone uttering the sentence must have misspoken.
Is the speaker trying to give financial advice to the listener? Is the speaker a banker informing the listener of the funds in their account? Is the speaker a merchant explaining they don't access cash payments? Is the listener on some sort of game show where weird arbitrary rules like "can't use large amounts of money" are in placed to make the game being played interesting?
It says what it says and context determines how that is to be interpreter. Any of the contexts you mention are possible. If more specific language is needed, Japanese can supply it but, typically, all that will be said is what is needed in context.
But I want to use gashapon/gacha
In English, "us[ing] a lot of money" would never be said. I feel like it should be swapped with "spend," otherwise I need some help understanding this sentence in both languages.
Some sentences, like "The sky is blue," make immediate sense to everyone because they reference common experience and do not depend on a contextual situation. Other sentences, like "You may not use a lot of money," beg for context to be fully understood. Duo, and other language courses, give us sentences of this second type without giving us context. As long as the sentence has the necessary elements to make it at grammatical sentence, the best approach is take it literally, imagine a context if possible, and deal with it as it stands. The point is to learn the vocabulary and structure, not to worry about whether or in what context the sentence might be uttered. It is sufficient that it is a possible grammatically complete sentence.
While I admire the general sentiment of your advice, pragmatically I don't know that I can endorse it.
Let's say you're learning a new language on Duolingo, and the "literal" translation provided to you for some foreign sentence is "The sky cries blue". How do you use this translation to help you learn the meaning of the original words in the foreign language?
Is it saying that it's raining? But then what's the relevance of "blue"? Is it saying that it's raining, but the sky is also clear? Is it saying that the raindrops themselves are blue? Or is "crying blue" an idiom for snow? hail? lightning bolts? something else?
Without knowing the answers to these questions, you have not learned vocabulary. You do not understand the sentence, and thus cannot apply your "knowledge" in a new situation. You wouldn't know when to say it, because you don't know what it means. When someone says it to you, you don't know what they mean.
If you know that it seems to be nonsense, you already know the standard glosses for the words.
If Duo hasn't given you a meaning, Duo isn't going to explain it for you. (Duo usually works sentences both ways; so, you can see what Duo thinks it means in English.) If a dictionary doesn't help and the sentence still seems like nonsense, it probably is. There is a famous sentence in linguistics, "Green ideas sleep furiously," to demonstrate that grammatically complete structures can be formed from words that logically cannot be combined. Grammar doesn't guarantee logic. But I haven't seen such a sentence in this course at all.
What we mostly see, that cause trouble, are sentences that can only apply to a context known to the parties in a conversation. The sentences are clear enough in themselves (like this one about using money) but you can't make complete sense of them without supplying context. The fact is that the who, where, when, what and why of the supplied context is not going to change the information given in the sentence. The sentence can stand as given in any context to which it can be applied and the best translation can vary accordingly. Just figure out what is actually said, imagine a context (or contexts) in which it might be said, and move on.
Japanese is a highly contextual language that tends to leave out what can be presumed to be understood. What is said may fit multiple contexts but literally mean what it says in all of them.
Duo does take feedback, though. I've submitted many answers that were initially rated as incorrect, only to have Duo e-mail me letting me know that my translation is now accepted.
I see two purposes to the discussion page that we are now commenting on.
1) To allow the users to help each other with learning the lessons intended by this question/answer pair.
2) To give feedback to the Duo-employed content managers that certain question/answer pairs are particularly troublesome and should be reworked.
While I see course contributors in other courses actively look at the comments here, I don't think it is the case for Japanese, and I have not seen for a year that a single feedback from the whole Japanese sentence forum is ever taken by these volunteers.
Duo emailed me about some of my suggested translations being accepted now so they must be doing something.
Jenda123, contributors only receive feedback via the report button (flag). I have not seen any of the forum feedback being considered.
KeithWong9, I see, I misunderstood a bit. Yes, they do not actively look at the comments, sadly. But at least reports are being checked.