I said " I am sometimes angry with my father" That should be accepted. Reported 5/22/18
Yes, the original two answers use “mad at” or “angry with” and “angry at” was added, so you can try reporting this version to see if it will also be added as an alternative correct answer. I have never personally heard this version though. Where is this commonly said?
I'm accustomed to hearing "angry with" as well as "angry at". Also "mad at", but I've never heard "mad with".
Then, of course, there's "mad about", but that can be used to mean angry about something or having a crush on or being in love with someone.
If we can be "mad at" someone, can't we also be "angry at" someone? Is this person angry "at" the father, or is the father angry and this person is angry along "with" him? Without context, "with" and "at" are both valid.
The Oxford dictionary lists the term "mad at" as informal and gives examples where it can be used with both prepositions _ "with" or "at". But just because you can say "mad at", it doesn't necessarily follow that "angry at" is correct. Replace "angry" with "happy" and it's clear that it's not right. Happy at my father? Don't think so. Happy with or happy for, depending on context. For what it's worth, my opinion is that "angry with" is if not more correct, then definitely more commonly used than "angry at".
In the USA, it has become acceptable to use “angry at” though “angry with” continues to be slightly more common. To me “at” sounds more aggressive. I wouldn’t say it about my father, but maybe if I were really angry with my brother.... No, I am really rather a pacifist. We must keep on reporting it. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/43671/angry-with-vs-angry-at-vs-angry-on
Nuances make the difference here. "With" implies a relational usage, "at" implies an impersonal or objectifying usage.
I wouldn't contend that Duo take "angry at" out of the bank of correct translations, but it shouldn't be shown as the correct translation.
I don't know why anyone voted this question down. I came here with the exact same thought. I suspect this was just an oversight, and that, indeed, a female speaker should use "enojada" to describe themselves. It's just that this wouldn't prevent a speech synthesizer of any gender from saying exactly what you tell it to say, even if it isn't correctly paying attention to gender agreement. I think this is all that's happened here. I might be incorrect, but I think I've seen this addressed in other discussions, and some comments noted that occasionally they missed some of these. Hope this helps!
Josrossi2, try thinking of it this way: what if a woman Spanish teacher needs to teach you the Star Wars sentence, *Luke, I am your father." The voice of the teacher does not matter in the learning of putting a sentence together at all.
Funny little sentences used to be in the older version of the app (before the change to crown system) that said things like "I am a penquin," but I'm sure the teacher did not have to go get a penguin to do the speaking!
You are correct, each voice says every sentence regardless of gender. So. we have to pay attention to what was said and not by which synthesizer voice. Sometimes one voice is clearer than the other and other times it is the opposite, so they continue to use both.
I agree. It was a female speaker. It should have been enojada, but she said enojado.
The sentences do not apply to the tts voices which are just reading them all, like we would read books.
Thank you for letting me know that. I was not aware that everything was 'neuter' in the delivery. I shall keep this in mind. Definitely explains why 'she' read it as 'enojado.' Thank you for the tip.
Yes, the tts voices come from a company out of house, while, of course, the sentences are created in house.
Why is it "yo estoy"? Shouldn't 'yo' be omitted because estoy refers to yourself anyway?
Yes, both are accepted. Yo estoy is redundant. Estoy is sufficient, and is very often accepted in duo lingo, as well it should be. Ask any of you Spanish speaking friends or co workers and they will tell you the same thing.
Tricky one. As an English speaker, I think normally we'd say '..angry with my' - but on reflection, I do find '...angry 'at'_' as being more contextually correct. Who am I angry at? 'With' perhaps suggesting you are both angry.
Well that is the difference between “talking with” (two-way conversation) and “talking to”. “Angry with” was the original version and the Oxford dictionary does not show any examples for “angry at”. In America “mad at” is another popular expression and over time “angry at” has come to also be accepted though it was originally considered wrong.
I don't understand why "Sometimes I am angry with my father" is wrong but "Sometimes I am angry at my father is correct". Don't both statements convey the same meaning?
In US English, 'angry with' and 'angry at' should both be accepted as they are both used in English and are equivalent. (But 'mad' takes 'at', but not 'with'. Go figure.
Not good English to say "angry at", it should be angry with. DL please note!
Both are correct in the USA and both are accepted now. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/43671/angry-with-vs-angry-at-vs-angry-on
I think this is valid answer as well. In my experience people use "molesto" to mean "annoyed" too.
No, in Spain “enfadado” means either angry or annoyed, but “enojado” means angry and “molesto” is used instead for annoyed.
I definitely am not a native speaker or anything, but SpanishDict, Word Reference, and Cambridge Dictionary say that "annoyed" is a valid translation of "enojado" (http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/enojado, http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=enojado, & https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/spanish-english/enojado). What do you think? Are these bad dictionaries to rely on?
I think it depends on how you use the word annoyed. If you are annoyed enough to be angry, it could work. You could try reporting it and include the dictionary link.
In Spanish it is always “con” with enojado, but in English you can say “angry with” or “mad at” and over time “angry at” and “mad with” have also come to be accepted.
“mi” means “my”, so “su” could not be used for this particular sentence since it means “his”, “her”, “your” (for usted or ustedes), or “their”.
I answered "....angry WITH" but it did not accept. Suggestion was to use "...angry AT..."
Please report it as also correct if everything else in your sentence is exactly like the answer above.
Both at and with are common. Neither is "more usual". It's regional.
One sentence I said con mi padre and it was with my father. Another sentence it said con su trabajo. I wrote in English at his job. They wanted with his work. I have seen duolingo use con to mean at and with but yet I got it wrong when I tried it.
I would say it more commonly means "with" so I would try sticking with that.
I guess so but if you ask yourself, “What are you mad at?” Or, “Who are you mad at?” You can actually say, “At my dad.” You are mad at someone or something. You can be mad with his performance. Just as an example. Either way, should have gotten it correct.
Both “at” and “with” are correct, but “padre” means “father” and “dad” is “papá” and “daddy” is “papí”.
Is there a specific sentence order for words like "a veces", "siempre", etc.? I thought they should always come after the subject..?
Don’t be confused with English adverb placement: https://www.thoughtco.com/adverb-placement-in-english-1211117
Spanish has its own rules: https://www.thoughtco.com/keep-adverbs-close-what-they-modify-3078169
In Spanish, the adverb that modifies the verb is more likely to come after the verb than before it, unless it is a negative adverb which must come before the verb.
This adverb modifies the entire sentence, so it can go at the beginning of the sentence. We actually can do that in English also.
No, because 'A veces' has to always be written together for the meaning to be 'sometimes'. For example, in English, 'Ice cream' is not the same as just 'cream', you need both words 'ice' and 'cream' together for the meaning to be 'ice cream'.
Wow this is frustrating, it says to translate 'con' which translates to 'with'. But the answer says 'AT'. Am i seeing this wrong?
In English both with and at are possible, but the Spanish typically uses “con”.
Sometime i am angry with my father con means with. Mostly En is used for at. Why con is used for at?
In Spanish this verb is used with “en”, but in English we can use “with” or “at”. Prepositions are often different from one language to another, so you may want to start translating expression for expression, instead of word by word.
I agree, it is most certainly correct. Be sure to report it with the Report Button.
"dad" is "papá"
"father" is "padre"
“Get mad” means “become mad” which is not correct, though “Sometimes I am mad at my father.” is correct.
In English, madness is insanity rather than anger, which is an emotion. Insanity tends to be more permanent.
I believe this Spanish sentence makes no sense. "A veces yo me quedo enojado con mi padre".
https://dictionary.reverso.net/spanish-english/Yo+me+quedo+enfadado I don’t know if it works with “a veces”.
Mad at is an American phrase, not a British one . On the whole duolingo goes with an American version , so Im surprised in this case . In Britain we wouldn’t use mad at , or angry at ..it would be angry with or cross with .
Using mad as a synonym for angry is limited to the US and Canada and is quite common.
I used mad instead of angry. They don't understand how these words are used somewhat interchangeably in English.
You are correct. Another example is I'm going to have "a coffee" w/my father. 99% of the time we just have coffee in America, not 'a coffee'. These are some quirks DL needs to work out. Just as they push that in Spanish you never say this or that, or you always say this or that. Well, the same is true in English! Even the British don't say "a tea". They just have tea. :- )
Duolingo also teaches “papá” which means “dad”. So, no, “padre” means “father”.
When i press on a word for example........CON.......and they give other meanings to that word.....in this case.....for CON.....they have... (At.....with.....and.)......i chose "with" and i was wrong?.....wth lol
With my father should be accepted. Maybe it is a regional thing but it is correct.
"Sometimes i am mad with my father" was labeled incorrect. Why can't that work?
We are likely to say “angry with” or “mad at”, but you could try reporting it.
I am confused! Doesn't "enojado" apply to a male speaker? Why is it a female voice? Shouldn't it be "enojada" instead?
The tts voices ( not live people) read all sentences as if from a book. The sentences do not apply to the reader of the sentences, but to the writer of the sentences.
Check your microphone. https://support.duolingo.com/hc/en-us/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=Microphone&commit=Search
It is confusing when Duo has a wrong gender make statements like Estoy enojado and it's a woman reader. Adjective agreement!
The tts voices are text to speech synthesizers they read all sentences as one reads a book. The sentences do not pertain to them as they are not the ones who wrote them.
If everything else was exactly the same then report it as also correct, but you should always put your entire answer here, just in case there was something else that you didn’t notice.
why does is have to be "Yo estoy enojado"? Can it be just "A veces Estoy enojdado con mi parde?"
No, “enojado”, because tts voice that sounds like a female reading what a male wrote. Both tts voices read all sentences as though reading a book.
Angry with still not accepted. 29/9/19. What is wrong with that? Everybody uses angry with!
Earlier in the lesson the words for "the father", "el padre" is offered... and yet "el padre" is so easy to translate. I'm not sure about the science of offering such simple translations, you are the experts. However, I think that many of the students will value more challenging phrases... so that we may better tune our ears to your beautiful language.... as an example, one of those challenging phrases is the rapid annunciation of "yo estoy enojado"..... Please, Please, Please, Duolingo editors. Offer up more really hard to understand alliterations of spanish words or phrases, so that we can better atune our inexperienced ears to these most challenging phrases. Thank you. I love Duolingo.
This is a user forum, so the course contributors and staff won't likely see your post. You would need to post it in the main forum.
I just said every word correctly and it still marked it wrong. Is this a common bug?
Hard for us to know if you said every word correctly, because we didn't hear you. That being said pronunciation is difficult yet there is also the possibility of something not working with the microphone or the program that "hears" you.
In English you NEVER say I am angry AT something - it is incorrect. You are angry WITH something or somebody. This needs correcting.
Never say never, though I myself prefer “angry with”. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/43671/angry-with-vs-angry-at-vs-angry-on
You might want to read the link ALLintolearning3 posted. Just because you aren't familiar with it doesn't mean it isn't used that way. Angry at is common and correct.
Something being common doesn't make it correct. I have an English degree. It's improper English. I may use improper English occasionally when speaking with family and acquaintances, but I would never correct anyone towards bad grammar.
As I posted earlier, nuances make the difference here. "With" implies a relational usage, "at" implies an impersonal or objectifying usage.
I wouldn't contend that Duo take "angry at" out of the bank of correct translations, but it shouldn't be shown as the correct translation nor be defended (as you seem oddly invested in) as good grammar.
It doesn't break any grammar rules. Can you site a grammar book or style guide that states it's wrong?
I'm not oddly invested. I just find it odd that people insist something is wrong with no evidence.
EDIT it's been used for hundreds of years in English. There is no reason to call a commonly used phrase bad grammar.
"Hundreds of years"? Can you cite a reference for that? I have already explained why it's improper. Believe what you will. I don't have time to do research for other people but you can start with the Harbrace College Handbook or The Bedford Handbook, which are better references than a mass-contribution site like stack exchange.
I will refer also to the original Spanish sentence, which clearly uses "con".
"I don't have time to do research for other people"
"Can you cite a reference for that?"
You can't tell me you don't have time to do research for other people and ask me to do research in the same post :)
"I will refer also to the original Spanish sentence, which clearly uses "con"."
The preposition used in Spanish does not justify the use in English. The Spanish sentence penso en mi madre should not be translated as I think on my mother. And terminé de hablar shouldn't be translated as I stopped of speaking.
The prepositions used in English vary heavily by context.
He's jealous of her.
He's happy for her.
He's angry at her.
He's angry with her.
"You can't tell me you don't have time to do research for other people and ask me to do research in the same post :)"
True, I was being a bit sarcastic. My apologies.
For those familiar with etymology and older English texts, Spanish word usage wouldn't be so odd. It seems often closer to Old English and it would be more helpful sometimes to be taught the exact translations instead of confusing paraphrasing. When in Spain think like the Spanish do.
Verdad (Duo) = Really
Verdad (Duo later) = Truth
Veritas (Latin) = Truth
Verily (King James English) = truly
So Verdad = Truth or Truly
Also: "Haply I think on thee, and then my state, Like to the lark at break of day arising/ From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate;" ~ From Shakespeare's Sonnet 29
To "think on" something or someone is not so unusual.
Keep in mind that the sentence at the top of the page is a correct translation and not “the correct translation” and sometimes it is the answer last entered as also correct. You should see what some people get shown for a wrong answer when the algorithm tries to show them the answer that is closest to their answer rather than the best answer. I also prefer “angry with” though “mad at” is common enough to also be accepted, after all who is being polite when they are angry?
The fact that people are now mixing them up and saying “angry at” and “mad with” seems strange to me, but languages do evolve. Who am I to judge? English is also my best subject. The stack exchange just shows that these are used, but “ angry at” is used with situations rather than with people, as far as I know. Context makes a difference.
You seem to be confused. You just thanked the person who explained that you are totally wrong in the first sentence of your original post, while being half-wrong and only half-right in the second sentence of that post.
It is not that dialect specific. Both are used with a slightly different nuance. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/43671/angry-with-vs-angry-at-vs-angry-on
No one seems to know how to reply, so I'll start my own chain. "Angry with my father" Is similar, but not accepted in Spanish. It would be "Enojado con mi papa", which can have different meanings. Spanish has different grammar, so it doesn't work.
Maybe the literal translation is "angry at" but it's at least more grammatically common, if not exclusively correct, to be "angry with" in English.
No, the literal translation is "angry with" and now both are accepted. "con" means "with".