Maybe a smoother translation would be: "You took some more chicken." Like one says when having a second helping.
I dared to use "You have taken more chicken" and it was accepted! Some meaning in this sentence now!
Sept 6/14. I just typed in "You have taken more chicken" and it wasn't accepted. Weird. I shall report.
"You took more chicken" is equally correct, but not accepted. Reporting of course.
Larousse shows the use of reprendre in paragraph 7 (à table) meaning: "to have/take more (of qqch)". http://www.larousse.com/en/dictionaries/french-english/reprendre/67725 http://dictionnaire.reverso.net/francais-anglais/repris%20un%20oeuf
- reprendre du pain to take more bread, to have more bread
- reprendre un œuf to take another egg, to have another egg
[Edit: This has been cleared up now so we can all move forward.]
And also, in another example rejected ' you had some more coffee'. we'll get there eventually :)
The context is the dinner table: "prendre" means to take from the serving dish, "reprendre" means to have a second helping.
In English, "retake" never means having another helping. That would be "take some more" or "have some more." You can retake captured territory, or a failed test. A photograph that didn't turn out. But that's about it.
I agree. "You retook some chicken" makes no grammatical sense in English, unless the chicken was of some strategic value and had previously been ceded to the enemy.
I quite agree. It sounds as if it spoil of war. Yet again the drop downs are nothing but a snare and a delusion.!!!! The choise of word is quite inappropriate
Although "recapture" is completely outrageous in the context of "some chicken", the FR reprendre has a considerable range of application including "recapture" in the sense of taking over a town after a battle, etc. http://www.wordreference.com/fren/reprendre These alternative definitions are legitimate, but that does not mean they are applicable in a given sentence. Context tells you. The hint listed at the top is most likely to be used in the correct translation. If you venture farther down the list, you may be wandering into unfriendly territory. Le contexte est tout.
You'd more chicken is super weird English. You had more chicken is slightly more normal. Not sure why, but you'd more sounds really really wrong. Maybe you'd had more chicken would be nicer.
At one time, someone had the brilliant idea to automatically contract "you had" to "you'd". Now DL is trying to find the code that does that and delete it. Although there may be someone somewhere who actually says that, the rule of thumb is to avoid contracting the verb "have" when it means to possess.
It typed in "You have taken some more chicken". Wrong. Correct answer: "You have recaptured some more chicken." Really?
That is what happens when 1) French speakers translate sentences into English without being really solid about what constitutes meaningful English, 2) English speakers try way too hard to be inclusive of every possible grammatical construction and defend the horribly outrageous translation by saying, "Well, it could mean that." I believe that most of these hilarious Duoisms have been eliminated.
what's the deal with all those "re" in the beginning of other existing words? any help?
Many French verbs use the re- prefix to indicate that the action is occurring again. In this sentence, it is more natural English to say "had some more chicken".
There is "to have" in the sense of possessing something (avoir) and there is "to have" in the sense of consuming something (prendre, reprendre). If I have a piece of chicken, I am eating it, not just possessing it.