Yes, to some extent... depends a lot on what the context is.
If you are talking about some guys who went backcountry and got lost, no equipment and the like... because they had no experience and no knowledge you can actually say so. it could be completed as "sin saber lo que se iban a encontrar"
That was my answer.I think saber required the "el" to be used as knowledge,leaving only"knowing".As "They were without knowing" doesn't work the verb must be ir & not ser .
I am going without knowing too. Knowing what this phrase means, for a start! There are some truly obscure & impractical phrases in this section.
Learning in Duolingo apparently isn't based on learning phrases, not to mention practical. :) It is about trial and error, communication, research and constructing your own sentences. It's making a daily effort and it is an engaging journey into a new language. And for me so far it's been significantly more effective than any phrasebook. That's why I love it so much. :)
Yes, some of the sentences are pretty weird. I guess, if some people were going off somewhere and the group they left behind had forgotten to pass on some information to them, they could say "They went without knowing..." (ie, "that there would be no bus to meet them", or whatever...)
I don't see much difference in meaning between "without knowing" and "without knowledge" - particularly because this sentence is offered without any context at all.
The initial lessons focusing on rote vocabulary were useful, but as it progresses this is becoming an exercise in guessing as to what the accepted answers are, then repeating the exercise 2 or 3 times to enter those, without any explanation or rationale as to why those are the "correct" ones.
Occasionally these discussion threads give a hint, but it is getting to the point where the time required and the frustration outweigh the benefits.
So my kneejerk response was to tell you that saber is a verb, but I thought about how languages work and did my research first. Saber indeed is also a noun which can mean knowledge. I think that in order for this phrase to be read as "They went without knowledge," you would need to say, "Ellos fueron sin el saber." Without the article there to clarify, I just don't think that the Spanish would be taken to mean what you want.
The important distinction between, "going without knowing," and, "going without knowledge," being, of course, that you can, "go to the mall without knowing why," but it gets strange to believe that you, "go to the mall without the knowledge of why." Does it.... work? Depends on your definition of effective communication.
In English, the gerund is formed with -ing. Confusingly, the continuous form in English is also formed with -ing. You may be confusing the two. In many cases, the gerund and infinitive are interchangeable. For ex: I like to know vs. I like knowing.
In Spanish, the infinitive is used, so "saber" may be treatable as a verb, or as a noun, depending on context.
My point was that direct word-for-word translations don't always work, and it is very difficult to know whether they do or don't based on a single sentence without context. If duolingo is going to give questions based on single sentences without context, they should at least broaden the range of "acceptable" answers to include other possible translations.
As it is, it becomes an exercise in guessing which of many possible translations are acceptable, then repeating the entire set of questions over and over to enter those particular translations.
I appreciate your response, marliner, but I was not attempting to differentiate what's acceptable in Spanish and how that translates (often inconsistently) to multiple forms to English. What I'm saying is that it is simply bad English to say, "I went to the mall without knowledge of why." That is not an acceptable English form. It is, however, good English to say, "I went to the mall without knowing why." Likewise, the translation, "They went without knowledge," while not technically incorrect.... would really need specific context so as not to come across as a very weird thing to say. Because in English, that prior form is distinct from, "They went without knowing," in meaning, albeit by nuance. You are obviously very literate, so I believe you when you say that either of these sentences in English would translate to the same sentence in Spanish, but the point is that the form "without knowledge" is RARE in English, and should basically be incorrect based on the fact that it needs context--- context that is usually overlapped and included in the other form anyway. The prefered English translation is simply, "They went without knowing."
I completely agree... Except for the part about how DL shouldn't accept "They went without knowledge." I agree that this would be a thing that would be rare to say, but I could see it being used poetically. Also, add one word - "prior" - and suddenly this does become a commonly used sentence.
Good point about the addition of an adverb making it a common phrase! "They went without prior knowledge," is definitely considered good English, and you're right, too, when you say that there's nothing technically wrong with the sentence (it's just "poetic").
Eso es genial! Works well, doesn't it? I find myself banging out sentences and phrases without having to think at times.
How is it you can do that? I don't have that option. I also don't have access to the immersion section of my languages.
And, was an earlier version of DL actually more like a game? I read about people gaining or losing hearts, but I don't know of what they speak.
I completely agree with everything you've said. It's very frustrating being marked wrong for something that is obviously correct.
I agree we could use 'se fue' which is the conjugated third person for 'irse' not 'ir'.
Did the sentence change? Duolingo does that sometimes. 'Fueron' goes with 'ellos'. 'Fue' goes with singular third person.
I think many of these sentences are a bit stilted and sometimes border on the illiterate or the incomprehensible. Maybe Duolingo is not being careful and the exercises are for the purpose of teaching us that the Spanish infinitive is often interpreted like the English gerund with its "ing" ending.
Nice debate here. To go without knowing is to be without knowledge of the fact. The fact is unknown without furter context. In a general sense,They went without knowledge.
Specificaly, They went without knowing. Or, They went without the knowledge.
I am currently without the knowledge of knowing, to know if both are known to be correct. Perhaps if I knew, I would then have the knowledge of knowing thus could possibly help make it known so we would know because, well knowing is only half the battle.
mostly what is the gerund in English is translated to the infinitive in Spanish so that would be pretty normal I think. I gave "They were unaware" which seemed plausible - but DL says no!
I think this kind of goes beyond simple translation into the realm of creative license.
In English, the continuous form "I am jumping" (i.e., I'm jumping now as we speak) just happens to be the exact same as the gerund "I like jumping" (i.e., I enjoy jumping as an activity). They aren't the same in Spanish - the gerund is generally shown by the infinitive, as in "I like to jump", "me gusta saltar"
Hope that helps some.
Once again if this sentence could mean either knowledge or knowing but DL only wants one damn translation possibility they need to give us more context then.
Spanish literal translation sounds to me like old English. (Shakespeare kinda line) "they were without knowledge", "they were not knowing"
Yes, in this instance. But it is also the past tense of 'ser'... which is what makes it so confusing.
What threw me was past tense of ir and ser are the same. I translated "They were without knowing"
I know that the "v" in Spanish is always/mostly/sometimes pronounced as a "b" depending on who is speaking, what they are saying, and where they are from. But, I have never heard the "b" pronounced as a "v," as in this sentence and a few others in DL. She (I know it's a computer) distinctly says: "sah-VEHR." Has anyone whose native language is Spanish heard this pronunciation?
As I understand it, they are interchangeable in pronunciation as letters. That said, at the beginning of words they sound closer to a soft English "b", or when against a consonant. In between vowels it sounds closer to the English "v", but without the teeth touching the lips.
Does that help?
I'm not at native Spanish speaker, but according to Fluencia (a course which I am also using), the two letters are pretty much interchangeable.
I'm not a native speaker, either, but I noticed this in church one day; and, have noticed it several other times since then.
Basically, pretty much across the board, not just in Spanish but other languages, too, from what I've been able to discern, B=V=F=P, =Pf, =Ph. Similarly, Z=S=C=K=Ch=Q.
I heard "Ellos fueron sin servir", which I translated to "they went without service". Obviously I misheard the sentence, but just out of curiosity, could that be a correct sentence, perhaps if the power or cable was out and they were without service?
Light bulb moment: So the preterite conjugations for both Ser (to be / permanent quality / translated: they were) and Ir (to go / translated: they went) are exactly the same. Am I not correct?
If they wanted to use the verb "to go out", I think they would have used "salir".
Wrote "they left" and got marked wrong.. I believe "ellos fueron" is not exclusive for "they went" only, can anybody fluent back me up?
Fueron is the past tense of 'ir' (to go) and in English it is 'went' ; 'irse is the Spanish verb for (to leave) and the past tense is 'left' and in order to say they left, one would have to say 'se fueron'.You can't always substitute one for the other in English. example: They left the party. They went to the movies. Two different verbs. Hope this helps.
The drop down bar suggested knowledge, is that a form of entrapment or should we ignore it and go with or gut??
I've noticed, from reading several different discussion pages regarding several different verbs, that DL seems to be in the habit of presenting vastly differing definitions for certain verbs without offering any way to distinguish between said verbs, mostly reflexive and non-reflexive counterparts, except to reject one's translations. Didn't anyone else notice that DL was using the exact same verb -crear- to mean both "create" and "believe"? That's just one example; the most blatant. Most of the other examples are much more subtle, like ir vs. irse.
"CreAr" means to create. "CreEr" means to believe. They are two different verbs. They do share the same verb form in the first person singular present (creo) and this can be confusing, but the other conjugated forms are slightly different.
I translated this as "They were without knowledge" and thought it might mean that in the sense of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden before eating from the tree of knowledge. It was marked incorrect. Even after reading the comments, however, I don't quite understand why this would be incorrect. Could someone please explain it to me. Thanks.
I think DL would have used "salen" (from salir) if they had meant "went out."
I think this could be translated "they were without knowledge" but Duo dinged me for it. Am I wrong?
I didn't see anyone post this before. To 'go without' (past tense 'went without') is synonymous with 'to lack' in English, faltar en español. To 'go' without knowing also indicates that they lacked the knowledge.
This sentence should have 'lo' after saber: Ellos fueron sin saberlo. Lo means that.