Translation:The snow was heavy yesterday, we both did not go to work.
I have reported this, as this sentence is a mess. :-)
"The snow was heavy yesterday. We both did not go to work."
The use of 'both' is completely unnecessary; "We did not go to work" is fine). It is also grammatically not quite right, as when used in a negative phrase, it is better to use 'neither' ("neither of us went to work").
But as some of the other comments rightly say, the original sentence makes no mention of the number of people, so there is no context in which to assume that two people are present. I could be wrong, but I think to imply that two people were present, you would need to say "我们两个都没有上班。"
I was going to say the same thing, that it is gramatically incorrect to say "We both did not go to work." It should be, "Neither of us went to work". Also, it is unclear if two people or more than two people are being referenced--so the translation "None of us went to work" is also possible.
Weather II is simply the worst and most inconsistent lesson so far in Chinese. In the end I had nine tabs open with the "correct" version to copy from. Many other perfectly good English answers - in many cases, much better and more natural sounding, are excluded. This is an exercise in remembering a strange English sentence, more than a test of Chinese comprehension.
For people arguing that 都 can't mean 'both' but only 'all' it's worth noting that (as far as I know) 'both' in English is a holdover from Indo-European grammar, which distinguished three grammatical numbers: singular, dual and plural. English no longer has a dual number, except in these sort of fossilised expressions both and neither. Chinese on the other hand doesn't even have grammatical number. To expect it to have an exact equivalent for the words all, both, none and neither is absurd. 都 I believe refers to a collective larger than one. In English that could be all or both (or in a negative sentence neither or none). Clearly both alternatives should be accepted.
INCONSISTENT!!!!!!!!! please change your bot's DB! That translation is plain incorrect, from the Chinese sentence we are given to work with.
我们都 = A. in a positive sentence = "We all..."; B. In a negative sentence = "None of us . . . "
If you really want to indicate that 我们 is actually two people, then your sentence in CHINESE ought to reflect that, i.e.,
我们两个都。 We both 。 。 。
他们两个都 = They both 。 。 。(他们都 = They all....)
Any idea how to accelerate the corrections here?
It gets tiresome to translate the exact sense of the sentence and have the answer come back to me as if I was wrong, even if the same words were in a different order. 'It snowed heavily yesterday, so we didn't go to work' could also be 'Yesterday it snowed heavily. We didn't go to work' As written above, it would be more correct to start with "The snowfall was heavy yesterday."
I know that it's not unusual for western students to have difficulty with hearing/saying tones correctly and I'm sure it's true for me too. Still, it's often very difficult to hear the critical sound/tone distinctions I expect from the text. I find myself leaning much more heavily on the written characters, which after four levels of pinyin only courses when I was younger...is pretty much the opposite of what I expected. I feel the pronunciation exercises would benefit from finer granularity comparisons at the least.
We both did not!? 1. Nothing to show it's only two people here. 2. In correct English we would say " neither of us" / "none of us" went to work. I seem to spend more time trying to remember / typing in garbled "correct" solutions than actually learning Chinese. Please speed up the fixes.
1.The first sentence or clause gives the reason for the second but the suggested translation fails to convey this completely. It requires some sort of connective to convey that idea. 2. As many have said "我们都没有上班。" doesn't make it clear that the subject refers to only two people - to convey that you'd have to use something like "我们都两..." 3. in either case the English used is weird. If it refers to two, English speakers would normally say "neither of us went to work" or for more people, "neither of us went to work."
As a native English speaker and beginner Chinese student, I find myself in the truely bizarre situation of criticizing the Chinese. Surely, if there are only two people "duo" is at best an unnecessary redundancy that might only be excused for imphasis ...in which case "neither" or "none" would seemed preferred translations, with "we" being the always acceptable but less flavored word. However, No Contextual Indication Of Two People wrecks this exercise as provided.
Mmm... I don't have a big problem with "heavy" vs "light" snow as it seems to be a frequently used native English/American term in areas that regularly get significant accumulation, like ski resorts or many mountains in general. The reference seems to be for resulting accumulation, which can literally be tons or relative size/speed/frequency of flakes as a very rough predictor of accumulation.
We English speakers fuss and fume because we know many ways of saying the same thing. I don't know that Chinese writers have the same capacity. Maybe if I learn to read basic Chinese better, I will discover there are the same sorts of things wrapped up in four-character idioms. Meantime, I struggle with the same stuff.
Although the Duolingo answer for this is a bit awkward and suffers from poor punctuation (the comma should be a semi-colon, a common error in Duo's Chinese), it is grammatically acceptable. Your answer is ungrammatical. Your sentence would be grammitical if you change it to read "It was snowing heavily yesterday; we all did not go to work." It is still a bit awkward, however. I don't know if Duo accepts that answer either, but it should. "Were" is the past tense of "are", and we similarily do not say "We are go to work today," but instead, "We are going to work today." This sentence also could not use "We all were not going to work," because that construction is the so-called "future in the past"; it refers to the future from a reference point some time in the past.
In specific context it does work, but without one I'd suggest sticking with simple past => 'didn't go'; the usage of present perfect sounds kinda confusing here. In the first clause you talk about yesterday, yet in the second clause you basically talk about yesterday AND today (present perfect indicates an action that overlaps to the present). So the sentence 'yesterday it snowed heavily, we haven't gone to work' is missing something, there should be, e.g., 'ever since' added.
But I agree that it should be accepted.