1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "A veces yo estoy enojado con…

"A veces yo estoy enojado con mi padre."

Translation:Sometimes I am angry at my father.

March 8, 2018

This discussion is locked.


Q for the group. Should not a female speaker be "enojada" and not "enojado"?


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.


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.


to be angry with somebody, not at somebody!


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.


Please remember that English dictionaries are descriptive and not proscriptive. A common usage may be rare without being wrong. Where I am from (Midwest) being angry "at" seems as common as being angry "with." As for "happy," I've been "happy at" all kinds of things. It may not be common where you are (or "you are at" or "you are from"), but that doesn't make it wrong.


Why is it "yo estoy"? Shouldn't 'yo' be omitted because estoy refers to yourself anyway?


It can be, but it doesn't have to be.


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.


Putting "yo" is optional, and it mean I


June.7.2020 still happens that wrong when i dont put 'yo'


Why "A" is using before "veces"? Cannot I start the sentence with "Veces"?


This is literally “at times”, but we usually say “sometimes.”


Thank you. More literal translations would help sometimes.


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'.


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?


Both are correct, so please report it.


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!


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 thought con meant with, not at! Confused


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.


The question is asking for a use of 'with', so the appropriate translation should normally be used to avoid the confusion one sees here. I would have thought that was obvious to anyone.


I don't understand why "yo estoy" yo=I estoy=I am why not just estoy?


Estoy = am, but in Spanish you can omit the subject.


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.


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.


enojada female talking


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.


The voice is female, so why is it enojado and not enojada


The voices are tts and read all sentences regardless of gender which actually has to do with the writer and not the reader.


a female voice is recorded - and the pas participle is masculine - shouldn't it be enjoada? using traditional m or f terms.


These are not actual recordings of people. These are tts and both say all sentences. So, ignore the sound being possibly male or female and just listen to what is being said.


Goodness sakes! When there is a feminine speaker talking about herself, it is so confusing to have masculine endings!


Why not"annoyed with"?


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.


Is ''Estoy enojado con su'' suitable too?


“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.


more usual in English for this to be I am angry WITH my father


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.


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.


Perfectly acceptable in colloquial and formal English to be angry "with" someone. This should be corrected.


I agree, it is most certainly correct. Be sure to report it with the Report Button.


Angry with still not accepted. 29/9/19. What is wrong with that? Everybody uses angry with!


Could it just have been asked,

A veces estoy enojado .............

Instead of asking

A veces yo estoy enojado........


Can i use Yo Soy instead of Yo Estoy


no, because ser and estar are used in different circumstances. i suggest finding a good website that explains it well, or ask a teacher or friend who kniows the difference.


I wrote: "A veces estoy enojado con mi padre" and it was wrong. Is it a must to put "Yo" before "Estoy"? (In many exercises I saw that it wasn't.. What is the rule?)


No that should be accepted if you were supposed to translate fromit in Spanish, but sometimes they want you to write in English. Doublecheck the instructions you were given, If you were supposed to write what you hear, then you have to include it if they said it.


I said sometimes I get mad at my dad. Why would that be marked wrong?


"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.


It is the more common meaning in British English, but check meaning 3 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/mad


Same here, I guess duolingo does not accept papa or dad for padre.


dad" is "papá"

"father" is "padre"


I believe this Spanish sentence makes no sense. "A veces yo me quedo enojado con mi padre".


I wrote sometimes i am mad at my dad, which should be correct too


Padre = father Papá = dad Papí = daddy


I used mad instead of angry. They don't understand how these words are used somewhat interchangeably in English.


What was your entire sentence?


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. :- )


Why does dad not work as a substitute for padre here?


Duolingo also teaches “papá” which means “dad”. So, no, “padre” means “father”.


But I checked the definitions of "papá" and "padre" on the Duolingo website itself and it says dad or father works for both of them...


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.


So you should report it then.


"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.


Angry with not accepted, 31.08. 2019. Reported


Did not accept estoy without yo as in "A veces estoy. . . "


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?"


Report it as also correct.


I can't believe this program teaches so many languages and doesn't know synonyms


Most sentences have at least 20 alternatives. Some have hundreds. If an answer is missing you can suggest it with the Report Button.


Sure would like to know what's under all thoe "deleted" comments...


It's mostly people posting duplicate questions and not reading the posts to see the answer.


If "veces" means you see, can someone explain how ''a veces '' means sometimes.


It doesn’t mean “you see”, “a veces” is literally “at times”.



The verb “to see” is “ver” and “veces” is not a conjugation of that verb though it is a present subjunctive form of the verb “vezar”.



“veces” is the plural of the noun “vez”.





In english you can sat angry with or angry at but with is better.


This sentence is not even correct, you'll never see a native using this grammar because it's just plain wrong


'with' dad should be accepted.


When do i use yo soy, estoy and yo estoy??


So is "Yo" necessary in this example since it uses "estoy" ?


"With" should be accepted. It is correct.


I put "A veces estoy enojado con mi padre" (missing the yo) - is this not correct?


It should also be correct if you were supposed to translate from English to Spanish, but there are other exercises where it could be wrong.


The question is to do with the Spanish asked. Could it just have been - A veces estoy enojado....... without the 'yo'. Would that also have been correct


I wrote "angry with my father," and it was counted as incorrect. In English this would be perfectly fine.


Do I have to put the "yo" before "estoy?" I thought i could just say "a veces, Estoy enojado con mi padre"


Instead of Estoy can i say Yo soy


How about A veces yo soy .....


How did Duo know this about me? Is Duo is still following me?


Shouldn't it be "a mi padre" not "con mi padre". Con I thought meant with not at


Shouldn't it be"sometimes I am angry with my father"


"Sometimes I am angry with my father." should also be correct and could be reported if not accepted.


Why not "angry with my father" rather than "angry at my father"?


Please report it as also correct.


Same. Except siempre.


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.


In English you NEVER say I am angry AT something - it is incorrect. You are angry WITH something or somebody. This needs correcting.


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.


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.


Mi papá = my dad

Mi padre = my father


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".


"Angry at" is American. "Angry with" is English


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

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