1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Vamos a comer a ese restaura…

"Vamos a comer a ese restaurante otro día."

Translation:Let us go eat at that restaurant another day.

March 19, 2013



"Let us.." Where did that come from? The sentence says: "vamos a comer" = "we are going to eat". No "lets" in sight, that would need "dejar" or "permitir" wouldn't it?


It's a first-person plural imperative. Let's go!

For most of those, you at least get a vowel-swap to indicate what's going on. "Let's eat!" is "¡Comamos!" But "ir" is crazy irregular. :-P


"Let's" ("let us") in English in an idiomatic expression that doesn't get translated into Spanish in this case. In the following case, you might use dejar or permitir: "Hey, kidnapper, let us go!"


It's not often that DL allows one to stray from a literal translation. I was a bit frustrated with this one. Thanks.


In this case, "Let's go eat ..." or "Let us go eat" is equivalent in English to "Let's eat ..." or "Let us eat ...". The "go" can actually be omitted, so these answers should be accepted.

Example: "Let's eat at that restaurant another day" should be accepted for this one. It's grammatically correct, and more closely matches the way one would say this phrase in English.


I put Let's eat and got marked wrong. Guess duolingo doesn't know this contraction.


"Let us go eat" is not proper UK English. One would say: "Let us go and eat". "Let us go to eat" sounds unnatural too. DL did not accept "Let us go and eat". I have reported it.


why is it "comer A ese restaurante" and not "comer EN ese restaurante"? what´s the difference?


My best guess is that when we have the word "go" in the sentence. Then we have a meaning of movement and that the 'a' therefore is the preposition of movement. 'Go to that restaurant'


Buena pregunta...


It's a mistake, the sentence means "We are going to eat that restaurant". It should use "en" instead. A more common phrase (and possibly the one they intended to use) is "Vamos a ir a comer a ese restaurante" (We are going to go to that restaurant for eating)


That's what I thought it meant--We are going to eat at that restaurant--if this doesn't say that, how WOULD you say, "We are going to eat at that restaurant." ?


I think Duolingo should accept "let us eat in that restaurant another day"


Hmm. It's fairly unusual in American English to express the first-person plural imperative using "let us", as separate words. It sounds stilted or formal. That form would more often be seen in a request directed to a third party. "Let us" as in "permit us". Whereas "let's" can't be used for that purpose; it only shows up in the context of "let's do something". "Let us pass, please," is asking somebody to let you pass. "Let's pass, please," is suggesting that you and your friend should (jointly) pass (something).


I agree, but DL also doesn't accept "Let's eat" without "go".


Absolutely. One should at least be allowed to translate into good English.


"Vamos" is in the sentence being translated so we need "go" to appear somewhere in the translation


yukesh.batra, "Let us go eat in that restaurant another day" is accepted. If your translation "let us eat..." was not accepted, I believe it is because the English sentence lacks the translation of "vamos". In conversation "Let's go eat in that restaurant" has essentially the same meaning as "Let's eat in that restaurant". However, to follow the same word structure in the translation, probably "go" is expected.


IMO, it appears Duo's translation is wrong because 'let us' is imperative and also the verb form is incorrect because it would be 'vayamos'. The sentence says 'we are going to eat at that restaurant another day'.

Edit: Learn Spanish says:Note that "Vamos a + infinitive" can also be used to convey the meaning "Let's ___." Note the two different ways of saying the same thing. And that 'vayamos' is for negative commands 1st person plural (nosotros) http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/noscomm.htm


I was wondering about "let us" being in the sentence as well. Too many are distracted by the conversational quality of the sentence (not what DL is about) when they should be asking why the words "let us" are even there in the first place.

Another problem is people are assuming they are knowledgeable enough to give the correct answer without backing it up with a reference.

Thanks for doing the legwork of finding the real explanation!


Why is ' we are going to eat another day in that restaurant' wrong?


Judging by Duo's literal translations maybe they think that sounds like you are actually going to eat one more physical day in that restaurant. Like, you ate one day and are going to eat another day after it. Mmmm. Tasty days.


Well, if it's one of those smorgasbord buffet type "all you can eat" restaurants and you're a serious glutton, I can see that being a viable sentence ;-)


we'll go eat at that restaurant another day - WRONG??


I was under the impression that 'Vamanos' translates as "Let us go." Is that like the "proper" way of saying it, but in practice people don't bother unless it's by itself? "Vamanos!"


"Let us go" as a translation for "Vámonos" is archaic. Today, "Let us go" implies bondage.


check out: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=76823; It appears Vámonos is still used but I did not see it on the conjugation charts.


Oh, it's idiomatic. Good thread. Claro!


"Vámonos" is the 1st-plural imperative for "irse", not "ir".


How & why did "vamos", the present indicative form 1st person plural of IR, come to be the imperative 1st person plural form as well? What happened to poor "vayamos"? Creates confusion & imprecision in the language.

Are you just stating a fact "We are going to eat at that restaurant" or are you saying it's something we aren't certain to do but that you're suggesting we should do, i.e. "Let's go eat at that restaurant." To further confuse things, "vamos" could also be just a simple present tense, "We are (right now on our way) going to eat at that restaurant", or "ir phrasal future" form "We are going (next month) to eat at that restaurant."

Expressing "Let us ____" phrases is like literally one of the main reasons the SUBJUNCTIVE form exists. Recall from way back in 1st year Latin class. When indicative "oramus" ("we pray") becomes subjunctive "oremus", it becomes "let us pray". (Just change "oramUs" to "oramOs" & Spanish is identical; in my Missals, Latin "oremus"=Span. "oremos"=Eng. "Let us pray".)

Thus logically in Spanish with all regular verbs the 1st person plural subjunctive is identical to the imperative form. The 3rd person/Ud./Uds. imperatives of "ir" are identical to the present subjunctive forms ("Vaya"/"Vayan") as regularly expected.

And "ir" has a perfectly fine present subjunctive 1st person plural form "vayamos", it's used in the negative command ("no vayamos"), but in the affirmative imperative, just "vamos"?

Seems like a lazy mistake that somehow over time got codified into the language rather than be easily corrected, at least in proper Spanish rather than colloquial speech?

It should still be technically correct for "vayamos" as the subjunctive 1st person plural to mean the equivalent of English "Let us go"? Suggesting we SHOULD do something is one of the reasons why the subjunctive mood exists.

Is there a nuanced difference with "vamos" as imperative being more forceful as a command/order while "vayamos" is more of just a suggestion?

A madre waiting impatiently to drive her niños to escuela while they're running late getting ready would shout "¡Vamos!" Let's go NOW!

But a muchacho riding in a carro full of his hungry amigos spots & points to a restaurant and says "Vayamos", hey guys let's go?

Or is "vayamos" just not used the way any other subjunctive verb form would? Not used at all?

Way overthinking this, but I hate imprecision in language, especially when so seemingly unnecessary and easily fixed (just use the subjunctive form to mean "let's go" like you would for any other verb, rather than confusingly using the present indicative form "vamos" that already can also mean either literally "We go"/"We are going" or idiomatically indicate future tense e.g "We are going to eat", i.e. "We will eat".)


Why not comemos?


I put, 'We'll go to eat at that restaurant another day.' and Duo said it was wrong.


why is it "a ese" and not "en ese"?


I go with percyflage. Where does the let us come from?


If this were a section on commands, one could do let's, but I think it would need the upside exclamation point first to be totally clear. Vamos works as the nosotros command, because vayamos has gotten shortened from constant use over the centuries. I still like "en" for in, at the restaurant.


''lets eat another day in that restaurant'' Was my translation and it is not completely clear why Duolingo says its wrong. In my (not native English speaker ) opinion, I say the same as Duolingo '' Let us go eat at that restaurant another day'' - but it sounds better. No? Can somebody please help???


If you actually typed "lets", then it would be incorrect because you forgot the apostrophe. "Lets" is a verb that shows someone is giving permission for something as in "He lets the kids play at the park." "Let's" is a contraction of two words (the verb "let" and the indirect object "us") and, in the U.S., is almost always used in the contracted form instead of the much more formal "Let us" because the latter implies a more gentle and refined request to cooperate with the speaker rather than a first person plural imperative which is more energetic.

Also, when you place "another day" after the word "eat", you have placed it where the direct object is supposed to be and are actually indicating that "another day" will be eaten. Most Americans would not say another day until the end of the sentence. Occasionally (or in some regions of the country) someone will make the grammatical error that you have, and it might slip past without a problem, or they might get laughed at because it is comical to think of eating another day. This isn't a case where the improper English is so common that it is an idiomatically correct translation. Duolingo shouldn't accept it because it is BOTH improper English AND not typical.

I would say, "Let's eat at that restaurant another day."


Let's go eat, and let's eat are very similar in English... bad translation


why isn't let's eat at that restaurant another day acceptable?


I think that "we will go AND eat .... should be accepted


No. "Go and" just like "try and" is bad English. It's "go to" and besides, the correct translation here is "let's eat at that restaurant another time".


If 'a' is 'to' and 'comer' is 'to eat' why is the extra 'to' needed? I am going to to eat.


When to use ''Ese'' or "Este" ?


Ese means that, and este means this.


Why is there no "el" in front of "otro"?


Whats the difference between comer and comemos?


This English sentence is very awkward. One would say rather, "Let's go to that restaurant another day."


ey did not give comer as a possible answer!


Something is not correct = comer was not one of the choices (1/21)


let us go? I think it's better to say: let's go to eat to that restaurant another day


Why let us go and not we will go?


I thought it meant "We are going to eat at that restaurant another day". Oops, I didn't think of the "vamos" imperative. Thanks for the explanations, or I wouldn't have realised. It has been a long time since I studied Spanish, like thirty years!


"let's go and eat at that restaurant another day" is certainly correct in UK english. Particularly "go and eat" rather than "go eat"


What kind of translation is this?


My experience with 'a' has mostly been with motion verbs, or as fixed phrasal use with certain verbs. This particular context generally has employed 'en' instead. Can someone comment on which use is more common and if both are even correct.

Vamos a comer en ese restaurants otro dia

Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.