"Quiero ir a cenar al restaurante nuevo."
Translation:I want to go out for dinner to the new restaurant.
I agree. I want to go to the new restaurant for dinner? I want to have dinner at the new restaurant?
Not accepted 5th Sept. Earlier Duo used "salir" as " go out for". Now it is "ir"
One of the reasons it probably sounds awkward to you, juli284918, is that the "to" translation of "a" (from a + el = al) was used instead of the "at" translation. Also, the word "to" as the beginning of the infinitive phrase "to go out to dinner" segues into the prepositional phrase "to the new restaurant." Not to mention that the infinitive "ir a" (to go out) has another noun substitute, which is the infinitive "cenar" (to dine/dining), as its object!
That's four uses of "to" that the brain has to juggle! This is not incorrect per se, but the alliteration of the word "to" leads the listener/reader down the garden path of expecting parallel construction when there is none. As a consequence, a logical disconnect occurs because he or she expects parallel construction but is presented with different parts of speech instead. The brain has to regroup.
Also, "quiero" is the predicate verb of the sentence, the infinitive phrase " ir a cenar" (to go out eating/to go out to eat/to go out to dinner/to dine out) is a noun substitute acting as the direct object of "quiero" (the predicate verb), and "to/at the new restaurant (al restaurante nuevo)" is the adjectival prepositional phrase that modifies the meaning of the noun substitute "cenar (to dine/dining)."
Better to use alternative ways of translating: "cenar" as "to dine out" and "a" as "at." Then, there is no logical disconnect because the translation omits optional "to's," becoming instead: I want to dine out at the restaurant. "I want" (Quiero) is the subject and predicate verb, "to dine out" (ir a cenar) is an infinitive acting as both noun substitute and direct object, and "at the new restaurant" (al restaurante nuevo) is an adverbial prepositional phrase that narrows the meaning of the infinitive "cenar" (to dine out) by telling where the subject of the sentence wants to go. (Remember: although acting as a direct object, the infinitive "to dine out/cenar" is still a verb and thus can be modifed by an adverbial prepositional phrase (at the restaurant).
10/10 for an interesting read Linda, thank you. But, you haven't convinced anyone that, 'I want to go out for dinner to the new restaurant,' is anything except rubbish English. Often, precisely the sort of English spoken by well educated non native English speakers who occasionally apply the underpinning grammatical structures of their native language to create word-for-word translations that are rubbish; just like this one. Parse this differently and - instead of rubbish - you get natural English: 'I want to go out for dinner.' ('Oh really darling, where to?') 'To the new restaurant.' .
I agree with you, Notm98, that a one-to-one translation is always more literal, as well as sometimes more natural. This is why I prefer "dine" and "at" as translations of the words "cenar" and "al" (at + the) in this Spanish sentence.
"to eat dinner" was not accepted even though that is one of the choices on hover for cenar. My full answer was "I want to go to eat dinner at the new restaurant," which is awkward in English but I thought it would be correct.
Like er, in England where traditionally dinner was and in some environments (e.g the military) still is the formal main meal of the day - taken in the evening - and tea is an afternoon 'grab it and go' snack (eg. tea and toast). More recently, as formality has died so, 'tea' has become de rigeur the name now given to the evening meal (too) often taken by individuals grazing, separately in front of their tv, tablet, smartphone or pc.
'salir was translated from the previous question which is 'to go out' Then the next question has 'ir' which was translated as well as'to go out'.Why is it a different word with the same meaning?
Lots of words have multiple meanings and expressions often have many different ways that they can be translated. Sometimes, words have overlapping meanings in various contexts.
In general, ir means to go, but it's used in lots of expressions and can have idiomatic meanings as well. "Ir a comer" = to go out to eat or "ir a + meal" means to "go out to eat + meal."
Salir often means to leave or to go out among other things.
I think one would need to use the verb "salir" if you're GOING OUT to dinner instead of just "ir" which seems it would mean GOING.
"I want to go for dinner in the new restaurant" wasn't accepted but this is how I would speak? There doesn't seem any need for the word "out" in this sentence although it makes sense either way. I will report it again as it seems my answer should have been accepted. Thanks everyone
I'm sorry Olwen but, 'in the new restaurant' just isn't a feasible translation of 'al restaurant.' (recall that, 'al' = 'a la' = 'at the')
Actually, al = a el and never a la. I'm sure you know this but others might get confused.
I agree that "out" is hardly necessary and, in fact, it isn't in the original Spanish. Adding it does nothing to help anyone's understanding of the statement. Moreover, if it really should be "go out," then the Spanish sentence would have used irse rather than ir.
Don't you 'dine' at restaurants? 'I want to dine at the new restaurant', sounds fair to me, but it's always subjective.
"i want to go to eat dinner at the new restaurant". is I think a better translation but rejected by DL. Moreover, "to go eat dinner" is also consistent with other DL translations. I translated at an earlier occasion "ir a" with "go out" and is was marked wrong! DL said it had to "to go (eat)". "Salir" was reserved by DL to be used for "to go out" Long story short, DL is not very inconsistent and I do not agree with "correct DL" translation.
Imho... The literal translation is, 'I want to go to dinner at the new restaurant.' The DL solution given above is poor (i.e. not) English. Parse the solution above to use the given structures and you get, '(I want to go) (to the new restaurant) (for dinner).' Which clearly, would be an incorrect translation but far better English. There's little (i.e. nothing) DL can do, say or write to tell me otherwise. This discussion reveals DL's confusion. Some days one or another translation is accepted and then it isn't. What an unmitigated shambles!? It's time to fix (or delete) this one DL boys and girls...
Why is "I want to go to the new restaurant for dinner" clearly incorrect? I actually think it's quite good. The only thing I'd change to make it a more literal translation is replace "for dinner" with "to eat dinner" since the latter uses the verb cenar.
To say "go out" we normally would expect to see irse or salir rather than just ir. By itself, ir means to go somewhere. Perhaps, that's the issue.
Dumb and dumber.. "I want to go dine at" reflects the ignorance of the common language usage ... "go and dine" or "dine" is accurate.
"i want to go have dinner at the new restaurant " was marked wrong. I understand that "have" isn't literally in there but it's really common to say this as least in the states