"A veces yo estoy enojado con mi padre."
Translation:Sometimes I am angry at my father.
"At times, I am angry with my father." seems a little more straight forward to me.
Did you forget the "estoy" and "con"? Before you complain, check that you are right.
I think the person meant to remove “at” and use “with” instead?
I said " I am sometimes angry with my father" That should be accepted. Reported 5/22/18
What was your entire sentence because “with” is accepted as correct.
Please report it as also correct, but first double check that it was not the multiple choice with more than one correct answer, because then it is wrong unless you choose all correct answers and also it cannot be the Listen to Spanish and write what you hear...in Spanish.
"Con" can mean more than just "with", depending on how the word is used in a sentence.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
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!
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
@brackenwood3: "angry at" is not bad English, just not a great translation from DuoLingo. "yo estoy enojado con" = "I am angry with" rather than "I am angry at". Likewise, general English usage is "angry WITH" people, but "angry AT" everything else. Not an absolute rule, but, e.g., "I am angry with my father" versus "I am angry at the weather".
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.
"At my father " is not a good translation. Better English would be "with my father. "
Not enough information, “Sometimes I am angry with my father.” is also accepted as correct.
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.
“Angry with” should also be accepted as correct. Did you report it?
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”.
Mad is not more suitable than angry. Both should be accepted as correct.
"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.
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.