ok yes that sounds reasonable. Thanks Paulenrique. But the English translation is incorrect. Parts of the body always have a possessive pronoun, the logic being that they belong to someone. So it should be ´the children are going to put their hands here´. Children is plural so hands are plural too.
I don't think and English speaker would use "set" with "hands" in a normal sentence. To take possession of something, perhaps in an unauthorized or aggressive way, is to "get their hands on this." If it means metaphorically to intefere, meddle, or attempt to influence, it could be "They are going to put their hand in this."
Hmm...I have to disagree. As a native English speaker, I can think of a number of sentences in which "set" and "hands" could be used together, for example: "He set his hands on the table," or "She set her hands to work."
The primary definition of set (to put, lay, or stand (something) in a specified place or position, synonyms: put (down), place, lay, deposit, position, settle, leave, stand, plant, posit) would also make sense in this situation.
What a great website! That's worth a lingot. Check this out: all four are possible, but with different meanings. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=get+their+hands+on%2Cput+their+hands+on%2Cset+their+hands+on%2C+place+their+hands+on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cget%20their%20hands%20on%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cput%20their%20hands%20on%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cset%20their%20hands%20on%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cplace%20their%20hands%20on%3B%2Cc0
Is the conclusion of this discussion that the sentence is literal? I think we have to go with Paulenrique's definitive reading from 5 years ago: That is, it means "they are going to get their hands on it/them (get hold of, take, mess with).
Can it also mean"They are going to put their hands here (e.g., on the steering wheel) [and put their feet there (e.g., on the pedals)]. Is this right? The point then being that in Portuguese They have a singular hand, whereas in English hands must be plural. Unless you say "one hand"--as in a situation where they put one hand here and the other somewhere else. I doubt that is the intention here.
Neither in my opinion... The Portuguese sentence sounds to me as someone's words describing an equipment operation (how to properly take x-ray from hands for example). In spite of this, "não ponha a mão nisso!" means something like "keep your hands out of that!", "ele dará uma mão" like "he will pitch in" or "he will lend a hand" and "ele põe a mão na massa" like "he gets personally into that"... :)
The équivalent idioms I’m English are « get my/your/his/our/their hands on something or someone » or « get ahold of something ». is always plural. Hands is always plural. It’s an expression and doesn’t vary. That’s just the way it goes. It usually has a negative connotation, expressing anger (e.g. desire for revenge) or fear.
Conversely, they might write in their own hand, or in adverse events, see the hand of their enemies. A charitable group might offer a helping hand to those less fortunate. A performer might get a big hand from an audience. An exceptional athlete could find that none of his or her competitors could "lay a hand" on him or her. A handful of examples should be enough to show that this is a tricky area of language. One more. A group of people might "show their hand" even if they weren't playing cards.
You deleted my comment? After you walked away from your goal of making learning language fun and free, now you're deleting comments? This comments section is now a requirement because your teaching methodology is fundamentally flawed. Of course the comments are going to blow up when you have sentences that don't make sense. I hope you're praying the people here who answer the questions well, since you're no longer interested in your goal of fun and free.