"산은 바다에 없습니다."
Translation:Mountains are not at the sea.
The translation, "A mount is not at the sea." sounds really, really unnatural and strange. Something like, "There aren't any mountains at the sea." or "There aren't any mountains at the beach." is a much more natural translation.
Can you translate this as:
the mountain is not at a sea?
I put the articles the wrong way round by accident and it was marked wrong. I know the articles don't usually matter, but there could be some grammatical reason why it's not correct.
Although, "by the sea," sounds better in English.
The English translation is a bit wanting. It would make more sense as "There are no mountains at sea."
'at sea' in English means in a ship, or in a boat. There is also a phrase 'at sea' in English, meaning lost, muddled, confused. 'She was knitting from a pattern, but dropped a stitch and found herself at sea.'
I'm not entirely sure about this, but my hunch is to say "the mountain is not at the sea" you'll need to use 산이? 산은 feels more like a general non-specific mountain.
I said "The mountain is not in the sea." and it was accepted as correct. There are mountains in the sea. So the general statement is false.
I guess since the korean course is new, they still lack in all the possible translations. I've been marking many times that I have a right answer and they are including most of them.
Humph. I gave 'The mountain is not in the sea' and was marked wrong; 'at the sea' was the correct answer.
As a geologist, I can say that the content of this sentence is completely false. In fact, Earth's tallest mountains are found underwater!
바다에 있다, 바다에 없다 are usually used in the same context as "is at the beach" or "is not at the beach" in english
To those who are confused by the meaning of the sentence: I think they're trying to teach us the same grammatical structure as you would use to say "I am not in the room", but then picked a slightly wrong set of nouns xD
Not sure what this means. Is it something like "The mountain is not by the sea."? (A ship can be said to be at sea, but a mountain?)
There are mountains in the sea. We are just learning the negative construction with the nouns we happened to have learned.
This is really odd as an English sentence. A mountain is not at the sea...? Okay? A mountain is not by the sea, there is no mountain at the seam either of those are better
Translated as "There are no mountains in the sea" sounds really deep/metaphorical
I want to be able to understand what is being said and this is going too far ahead to be able to pick up what is being said. I don't want to look at the letters and make out the words. Is there anyway for the vocals to go slower or to break up the sentences by listening?
They are just gradually adding all the translations.. Let's hang in there and if our answer was right, report it to them. #fighting
"There are not mountains at the sea" should also be correct (since it actually sounds more natural than the approved translation)
I don't understand why this: "Mountains are not at the sea." is correct if there is no plural marker?
What?????I wrote there isnt mountain on the sea and still said its wrong여기 한국인인사람 이거 영어 키보드인디 글자를 다외움 이거 신기하드아
Is it wrong if i change the word order and say 바다에 산은 없습니다 ? Just being curious.
For me, I put "there aren't any mountians in the sea" and it graded it as wrong. I don't know why because its the same thing just worded differently . Duolingo should have more possible answers rather than just one
I translated this as "the mountain doesn't have a sea" and duo said it was wrong, is that true?
By my experience so far this is the literal translation. I think the meaning comes more or less to " the mountain is not at the sea/ near the sea) idk how far i m right. My korean phonetic guide as of now are literally k dramas and bangtan's songs . Althought its been five years the interpretations are still muddled.