Seems to me that it should be a correct translation, not "wrong". Perhaps a native Dutch speaker can straighten us out or affirm our confusion.
edit: deleted my comment. For explanation see El2theK's comment in this thread
I'm confused - but sometimes the comments relate to a different phrase at the head that brings me here.
"They are not still here" sounds strange in English - perhaps that was why it was marked wrong>>>>
Better to say "they're still not here"
Both these sentences are correct English, but they mean different things:
1. They are still not here.
2. They are not still here.
1 = they have not yet arrived
2 = they have already departed
It does not "sound strange" to say #2, if that is what you mean!
Agree.....now that I'm re-reading it.
Might you say:
when you're waiting for friends but they are possibly late?
When your friends have left ....?
The verb is plural with they, 'ze zijn,' and singular with she, 'ze is.'
Ze can mean both she and they, but if you look at the verb after (here "zijn"), it will change depending on if you are talking about she or they. "Ze is" would mean she is, while "ze zijn" means they are.
If you wanted to say 'they are not still here' in Dutch, rather than 'they are still not here', how would you change the sentence for the word order to be correct in Dutch?
All the word orders used in the primary answer as well as in the many helping suggestions seem to ignore the Dutch rule: time/manner/place. Shouldn't "nog steeds" (time) precede "hier" (place)?
The 'lightbulb' notes refer to 'time' before 'place' as a rule-of-thumb, but here we have 'place' before 'time'.
Is there a particular reason, or does it just 'sound' better?
"Nog steeds" is not time, but manner, and manner is quite flexible on where you can place it. You can switch them as well: "Nee, ze zijn nog steeds niet hier"
Not sure I see the difference in English between "They are still not here" (which Duo calls the correct answer) and "They are not here yet" (which is the way the Dutch sentence makes the most sense to me, but Duo calls it wrong). Reported on 2/23/2019
I agree that "still not here" and "not here yet" are close in meaning. My own solution is the following: If the Dutch sentence includes the word "steeds", then I think "still not here" is the better translation. But if the Dutch is just "Nee, ze zijn hier nog niet", then I would translate as "not here yet".
The difference is that "steeds" is an intenstifier which I think is captured by "still not" as opposed to "not yet".
how to reflect the difference between "they are not still here" and "they are still not here"? in the first case they haven't arrived, the person speaking is probably waiting for them. In the second case, they are not "still here" so they left.
I found Google translate useful to try to understand the difference between two similar answers:
No they are still not here (ie they are late)= Nee ze zijn er nog steeds niet
No they are not still here (ie they were here but have now gone) = Nee ze zijn hier nog steeds niet
However Duolingo marks the Google answer as incorrect. Why?
- No they are not still here = Nee, ze zijn niet nog steeds hier (or more natural in your context - zij zijn er niet meer)
Hence, Google Translate was wrong.
I tried "No, they are not here still", but it was marked incorrect. The placement sounds a bit funky but I don't believe it to be grammatically wrong; I've used this identical sentence to convey the same meaning in real life before.
Geocub, your sentence is valid English. It means that they were here at one time, but have since departed. But that is not what the Dutch we are given means. The Dutch we are given means that they have not yet arrived, which in English is "They are still not here."
Nope, that means something else. In Dutch, that would be: "Nee, ze zijn hier niet meer."