Translation:Every Sunday, Duo swims in his gold.
Scrooge McDuck and his family were drawn in America, but they are very popular in Germany as well.
(Possibly other parts of Europe as well. I think many of the modern comics are drawn by Italians.)
The stories of Scrooge and his family were serialised in book form in the Lustige Taschenbücher -- more than 500 of those have appeared so far.
I think every German child will know who Dagobert Duck (Scrooge McDuck), Donald, and his nephews are.
Well, it was certainly on in America, but you don’t necessarily have to know about it to get the translation exercise. Sometimes it seems to me that they make sentences that present an idea that is just a bit unusual, perhaps to make it stick in your memory or to get practice translating ideas that might be just a bit fanciful.
It was very popular in Poland too, known as "Kacze Opowieści" ("The Duck Tales") and the above-mentioned character was called Sknerus McKwacz here. :) So it's not only an American thing, sorry! And by the way, Donald's nephews were called Hyzio, Dyzio and Zyzio here. :)
"Duo swims in his gold every Sunday." "Every Sunday, Duo swims in his gold." "Duo swims every Sunday in his gold." "Duo swims, every Sunday, in his gold."() "Duo, every Sunday, swims in his gold."()
All of these are perfectly correct in English and, for the most part, mean the same thing without changing much emphasis. The two marked (*) are technically correct in writing, but nobody actually talks like that. You might use these less-common versions to change the emphasis.
As an Australian (my family has lived here for generations), they had stopped teaching grammar in public schools when I went to school so my generation were not taught whatever rule you are refering to there, so I put as would many Australians would say "Duo swims every Sunday in his gold" . as that is how we can naturally be speaking here so this should be marked correct.
I disagree: dialectic, sure, but if it's an idiom spoken by a group of native speakers, it is correct. Also, even had it not been an idiom of theirs, it does parse as a valid English sentence with the correct meaning. That's the issue with spoken languages: there's a lot of ambiguity.
Methinks there are a lot of folks for whom “every Sunday in his gold” would be satisfactory. It would change emphasis, that the swimming occurs every Sunday, as opposed to swimming in his gold.
As for kielasim ’s comment above, he blames Mexican Mennonites for that “over the fence” sentence, but I think it points out a serious deficiency in English (as opposed to Spanish or German): Suppose you are specifying “the horse over the fence”; just how else would you say that?
However, if he means, the manner by which you throw the horse some hay, “over the fence,” then I’d agree, it belongs at the end of the sentence.
Studying Spanish and German have caused me to consider just how archaic our own language has become.
In the 1980s, at least, I was taught that the pronouns for animals followed their grammatically assigned genders.
In German, an owl is grammatically feminine, "die Eule," and probably should have had "ihr" for its pronoun. Also confusing is that the pronoun "sein" is used for both "his" and "its" in English. But again, an owl is grammatically female, so I'm thinking "ihr" would have been more correct.
Others have speculated that "Duo," the person, is a male, hence "seinem."
Going from English into German, did anybody try "ihrem"?
Going from German into English, I'm guessing there were a lot of people who tried "its" and it was marked wrong.
Anyone else care to weigh in?
We know that Duo is a boy. He has always been referred to as such and in English which is the primary language taught on Duolingo names that end in "o" are usually masculine. Also you only refer to animals as it when you don't know the sex but many animals are sexually dimorphic just like humans so you can tell by looking which is the male or female if you have basic zoological knowledge.
Once you have given a name too an animal, you usually stop referring to it as "it" but use he/she instead.
Moreover, you usually refer to animal characters, like for example in cartoons, using he/she. Especially if they are "humanised" (wearing human cloths and accessories etc...)
Which part of the sentence are you having trouble with?
Duo has a lot of gold.
Enough gold that you can fill a swimming pool with his gold coins.
Duo likes to climb into the swimming pool and "swim" through his gold.
He does so every Sunday.
"Every Sunday, Duo swims in his gold."
(Not a picture of Duo.)
The part I don't get is the swimming. In English, by definition there needs to be water. I suppose that someone could swim in any water based liquid, and in this case it appears to be a gold one.
I don't know how an owl, or anybody else could swim in coins. I suppose that they could be walked on. I also can't think of many gold colored liquids that an owl would have access to, or why an owl would want to swim in any that I can think of.
These ideas are fantasy. An owl would not have coins or teach languages for that matter. The people behind Duo often use pop(ular) culture to create the sentences. In this case, they've used a Disney cartoon and put Duo into it. There have been so many ridiculous and hilarious sentences. I, and many others, truly enjoy the entertainment value. Yes, in real life, one could not swim in a solid. But who cares. One can't perform magic but we love Harry Potter.
- Jeden Sonntag schwimmt Duo in seinem Geld. (Probably the most common, using the time expression as a topic -- "I'll tell you what Duo does every Sunday: he swims in his gold.")
- Duo schwimmt jeden Sonntag in seinem Gold. (Neutral word order. Just makes a statement.)
- In seinem Gold schwimmt Duo jeden Sonntag. (Hadn't currently been accepted; I just added it. Probably the least likely order. Topicalises "in his gold", i.e. "He swims in silver on Thursdays and in diamonds on Fridays, but in his gold? He swims there on Sundays.")
I gather from previous comments that there is some kind of cartoon context for this sentence. However, it means nothing to me, and, as such, just seems silly. Duolingo please stick with plausible sentences, otherwise it feels like a waste of time, which, when learning a language is challenging enough, is a real shame.
It's a good thing you're not doing the Spanish course. That one has cows writing songs and horses going to the cinema. The Japanese one also has a dog wearing a tie. What matters is sentence structure, grammar and vocabulary: as long as you know those, you can substitute whatever you want as the subject or object of the sentence, so it's really not a waste of time. I think it's quite fun to have goofy sentences every once in a while.
The "mistake" is that it's something literally impossible that doesn't make any sense. If it said that Duo was drinking dolphins, you'd probably also get people who wondered what it even meant, and if it turned out that there was some cartoon that showed an owl drinking dolphins, and a certain segment of users knew about it, it wouldn't suddenly mean that the sentence made sense. Something doesn't suddenly make sense just because somebody could make a cartoon of it, so it's irrelevant whether or not there's a cartoon.
It's subjective to a degree, but some people consider it a mistake to use sentences that don't help them learn anything and make no sense to them, when you could use a sentence that made sense, even if it's not realistic.
If you said that Duo was swimming in apple juice, for example, it would do as much to teach German concepts as this sentence, with the added bonus that it would remind people of a word learned earlier on. Nobody would have to think that it's literally true, but it wouldn't be impossible to swim in orange juice.
Just because you like the sentence doesn't mean that it's justified to use it, when a small change could teach more and not confuse anybody. The justification for not using the sentence as is is that it confuses users and doesn't add value. Since I can't think of any justification for not using the same sentence with "apple juice" instead, but can think of justification for not using the sentence as is, then maybe you can give some justification for why changing it would be bad.
Wayne, this sentence should not be taken at face value: it's a symbolism. It just means that Duo is very rich. In Spanish, that you are currently learning, we have a similar expression: "nadar en dinero" (swim in money). Nobody will ever believe that you can swim in money because money is usually paper or coins, but it means that you have so much that it's like being surrounded by water when you swim in the ocean or in a big pool or in a big lake.
That's fine if "swimming in money" is an idiom, but in that case, it's not likely that you'd say that you swim in your money every Sunday. Swimming in money is better than drowning in debt, but when a sentence doesn't appear to be idiomatic, but if somebody told me that on Sundays, John drowns in his debt, I'd have no idea what that means.
i am confused, why is it "jeden" and not "jeder" considering that "Sonntag" is masculine?
Accusative of time.
jeder Sonntag would be nominative = every Sunday (as the subject of a sentence)
jeden Sonntag is accusative = "every Sunday" (as an adverbial, describing when something happens)
Why isn't it "evwry sundas swims Duo in his gold"?
Because that's not natural word order in today's English.
It sounds like something a German speaker might say, who wants to use his German word order in an English sentence.
Verb-second word order used to be more common in English and is sometimes still found in fixed expressions such as "Little did he know". But nowadays, the verb pretty much always comes after the subject, even if something else comes before the subject.
Er, no - that's not the reason.
jeden Sonntag is in the accusative case to show that it's a time expression.
It's not the direct object of the verb schwimmen -- you can't "swim a day".
As an example of a sentence with no action but with a time expression: Duo ist jeden Sonntag faul. "Duo is lazy every Sunday". Being lazy is not an action, but jeden Sonntag is still in the accusative case, to show that it expresses "time when".
Is not "Duo swims every Sunday in his gold" the clear equivalent?
If you translate word for word, you get "Every Sunday swims Duo in his gold".
But that's not natural English word order, so you have to rearrange.
Time expressions go at the end in English, so the most natural translation would be "Duo swims in his gold every Sunday".
Or if you want to keep the time expression at the beginning, then "Every Sunday, Duo swims in his gold" with comma and with the verb moved after the subject.
I'm not sure how you think that "Duo swims every Sunday in his gold" (which does not sound like natural English to me) would be "the clear equivalent", when it neither reflects the word order of the German sentence nor natural English word order.