Shouldn't "we go and come on the streets" also be accepted? I get that they're probably going for the idiom "come and go", but that's not at all clear out of context, translating from the French. Is "allons et venons" à similar idiom in French, where the words are usually used in that order?
It's not a big deal but where English says "come and go", French says "aller et venir". Note that this carries the sense of "going back and forth".
Sometimes the require us to follow their word order and sometimes they forbid it. This is the latter. Is it wrong to say "go and come" in English? It certainly isn't usual.
I don't know if it's wrong to say "go and come" but I've never heard anyone say that in English. The expression "come and go" is what you would hear and from DL's expression here I am assuming that "allons et venons" is the equivalent French idiom.
To be honest, Many translations from French to English sound not in a correct English. Many times sentences are marked correct in English, but no one would use that expression in English. Sometimes things are marked wrong, others are accepted. It is all very confusing
It is not wrong--just more literal. In English, we generally do not say "go and come", but rather "come and go". That's all. You are not forbidden to use the literal translation.
Sometimes they want literal translations and sometimes we are just expected to guess they mean some English idiom. I had it right. I checked with other translators. I'm now on the verge of quitting using this.
The effort to translate correct and natural French to correct and natural English is not without its issues. That includes when those doing the translating insist on literal translations or complain when a more natural English expression is used.
Is this idiomatic? Come and go 'in' or 'from' the streets sounds right in my native English, but 'on'?
I think either "in" or "on" would be correct and which one is more used would probably be a regional difference. Personally I prefer "in", but "from" doesn't seem to work at all to me unless you are talking about people getting off the streets, which isn't really the meaning of this idiomatic expression.
While I know that " to come and go" is an English idiom....
Is the lesson here that there is a similar French idiom, where the verb order is reversed? Or is the word order switched for lyrical reasons? (To my ear, "allons et venons" sounds better than "venons et allons".
Edit: And any ideas why "We come and go in the streets" is not allowed? Seems valid to me.
The expression does not mean in the middle of the street. It is just the French way, e.g., il marche dans la rue = he is walking down the street.
Why not "We are coming and going in the streets". ("On" is accepted instead of "in")
As a native english speaker, I've never heard anyone say: We come and go in the streets. It just doesn't make any sense.
We come and go all day long, makes sense. We come and go as we please, also makes sense.
I wonder if this is an actual French phrase and the problem is the English translation is really poor.
The expression "aller et venir" refers to the action of "going back and forth".
I can only assume they don't have walkways, and they have to walk in the street.
Of course, it does not literally mean in the middle of the street any more than "down the street" means that you are going to a lower elevation.
I was marked wrong for using rue instead of rues but how are you supposed to know from the listening exercise unless you are familiar with this saying?
The use of "les" implies that the noun is plural, i.e., «rues».
Singular use would be «la rue».
If you are a native English speaker, it takes a little bit of time/practice to pickup on the gender and quantity cues (le/la/les, how adjectives sound/are written, etc). You'll get there!
it translates to 'we go and come in the streets' so why can't that be accepted???
I put "through the streets" rather than in or on. In idiomatic English it is perfectly correct but it was marked wrong.
If going and coming is the French way, then we should be able to use it too.
The translators at DL need to decide (and tell us) whether they want translation or interpretation and they also need to get themselves some native English speakers to check the translations (or interpretations). If DL wants to stay useful and not run itself out of popular use in the more advanced sessions these details must be addressed. Ive used DL for quite a long time now but I'm getting more and more frustrated with their lack of detailed accuracy and lack of consistent approach and seriously thinking of finding a better on-line learing tool. DL are you listening?