Translation:I forgot to take my dog out, so it is angry.
Grammatically speaking, "it" is the correct pronoun for "child", "baby" and "kid" as well.
Although in Chinese for babies they are referred to with gender, but not in proper English.
This is arguably a case where we need the now-archaic variant 牠, "it" (used of/for animals). ;-) Which I just happened to run into yesterday, completely by chance!
This is what I'd come to say yesterday, when I got distracted and instead made my silly joke below, but I think it turned out okay in the end. ;-)
Not for me. But the more you love your dog the more you would refer to it as "him" or "her" etc.
Yeah I think 'he' or 'she' should also be accepted as more idiomatic translations for the English part.
No one said anything about a 'walk' specifically. Maybe it wanted to go for a drive.
Yes. I put "take my dog for a walk" and was marked wrong. "take my dog out" doesn't seem like natural English to me. It's a too literal translation of the Chinese. So Chinglish or reverse-Chinglish (-:
Thinking about it more, for a dog that lives mostly inside, especially where winters are cold, the other reason to "take your dog out" is for it to go to the toilet.
But in that case you don't "take it out" you would use either or both "let" and "outside". (For a cat you can "put it out" but I don't think we use that for dogs.)
Don't need to use "outside". "Who let the dogs out?" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Let_the_Dogs_Out%3F)
No Chinese says that, it's either 忘了帶我的狗出去 or 忘記帶我的狗出去(了). This Chinese sentence is really awkward and arguably wrong, and I'm speaking as a native speaker.
Many problems here. 1. A dog should be referred to as him or her here. 2. "牠" should be used instead of "它". 3. "了" is misplaced. The better sentence is "我忘记带我的狗出去了，所以牠很生气。" (4.) Although "take my dog out" doesn't sound natural, it's the most accurate translation. If you're a French speaker and would like to learn Chinese in your mother tongue, comment on Duolingo or my profile. This will encourage them to launch the course!
I wrote take out my dog... not take my dog out... Do I not know how to speak my own language?
Why, are you taking your dog out on a date? ;-) That sounds odd to me. I'm also a native speaker of English, and I'd never say "I'm taking out my dog." Even if it were on a date, it would still sound a bit strange.
If you were dating your dog, you'd sound more than a bit strange, arguably.
Well, yes. It's just that that's what the word order implies ... and even if were the case that you were taking someone out on a date, you'd put 'out' after the subject: "I'm taking my GF/BF/dog out." Keeping 'out' right after the verb - "I'm taking out my GF/BF/dog" - sounds strange grammatically, at least in American English. Now, dating one's dog sounds strange in another way altogether! :-)
I don't think it's wrong, though I agree that it does sound a little awkward here, for some reason, though not that it really points toward dating (as you seem to concede in part).
There are certain phrases where the construction is a bit more at home – "take out the trash", "take out a mortgage", "take out an insurance policy", etc.
It could be a matter of emphasis, i.e. that the "out" is more emphatic when "taking someone/something out", and the "someone/something" is more emphatic when we say it the other way.
It could also be a matter of durative result. When I take my dog or my girlfriend out, we spend time out. When I take out a mortgage, it doesn't matter that the mortgage is "out", it matters that I have a mortgage. "Take out the trash" doesn't necessarily fit this pattern, though we could say that it doesn't matter that the trash is "out", per se, but that we've dealt with the trash.
That said, if the object of "take out" is long, putting it after "out" might be better in any case: "I forgot to take out the dog that bit me after Christmas dinner last year when I tried to feed it some turkey." It's a strained example, perhaps, but it'll do to make the point.
Edit in response to your response below: I'd allow it as grammatically correct, as it doesn't strike me as awkward enough to disallow. Not even close.
It's certainly understood; that's not the issue. The point is whether the original sentence "I forgot to take out my dog" sounds awkward or not. In American English, it does. Perhaps British English is different.
If a sentence sounds awkward, then it should not be accepted by Duo as a possible translation - unless there is absolutely NO BETTER WAY to say it and still get the point across in English. That's the crux of the question here. We could talk all day about possible wording, how it sounds best, or what words other words that sentence construction does sound good with. But I have no desire to do that. :)
You know how to speak your own language but you might not be aware that Duolingo uses its beta users to help build the course.
And many Duo users whose mother tongue is not English or/and don't speak English correctly use the app to learn Chinese. Hence the problem! Patience!
Yes it should be acceptable both with and without "very". That's how it seems to go through most of the course here.
Duolingo,I know this is correct English, however, this is the 21st century, and you still refer to an animal as a "it"? Like they are things, with no sexual attributes? Duolingo, wake up, and promote progress. Even in China things are changing and less and less eat dogs. Again I know this is a correct grammatical form, but languages are created my Humans, they grow, grammar comes after creation. That's a political choice. If you claim you are progressist, then assume.
I hope that you have progressed past eating any animals, then.
Now, I do hope Duolingo also accepts he/she as correct. That would make sense for pets :)
But how else should we translate the sentence in English without making an assumption, since there's no indication of the gender in Chinese? Unless you're suggesting Duo should ne actively trying to make the Chinese more 'progressive' instead of teaching us how it's actually spoken?
Also, I do find it interesting when people judge 'progress' on the basis of the size of a small minority of people who sometimes eat one particular species, while saying nothing about the treatment of all the other species kept and slaughtered.