I did indeed report Dl's error abut "persons". I invite others to do the same.
I hope the persons - as opposed to the computer algorithms - at DL get their rears in gear SOON. No way this should take this long.
"they DO read the reports." But more than a few persons have been reporting this serious omission for over a year now. WHAT is taking DL so long to stop rejecting a perfectly good answer?
1) What is a bot?
2) You say, "persons doesn't make sense". If something does not make sense to one, that means one does not understand what the words mean, does not understand what the speaker is trying to say. "I feel like you are (I assume by "your", you mean "you are") a bot", for example, does not make sense to me, because I do not know what the word "bot" means. Do you honestly not understand what "For three persons" means? It means "for three human beings." Is that understandable?
I think your (comment) about persons doesn't make sense. You should have been able to figure that out.
I really do not know what you mean by "I feel like your [sic] a bot." And I do not know why you think "For three persons" "doesnt [sic] make sense". You really honestly do not understand what "for three persons" means? Are you are one of those DL students with a mother tongue which is not English?
One correct way is to say "three people". Another equally correct way is to say "three persons". Some persons prefer the first; some persons prefer the second - but both are correct.
Benjamin. You are totally out of line. This is a discussion for intelligent beings to work out a problem not to revert to "Shut up" what you don't get your way.
That is technically the more accurate phrase as well, even if it is not used as often. "Persons" implies a group of individuals, while "people" is an entire group collectively, as if the group itself is one being. Both work of course, but again, "three persons" is more accurate for most situations people are going to deal with, as persons of the English language.
no it shouldn't theirs something called a brain...use it if you have one
Why the rude comment, Melody? To whom is it directed? And it's "THERE'S" something, not "theirs" something. Please add something to the forum, not denigrate others. Thank you.
If you want to say 'more humans' you can't use 'persons', because in English, the plural form of person is people. That's why it is not correct.
"person" has TWO plurals in English, just as 'fungus" does. Either "funguses" or "fungi" is correct as a plural - some persons prefer one of these plurals; other persons prefer the other; it's a matter of personal choice. The same is true of "person"; it has two plurals, each correct - some persons prefer one of the plurals; other persons prefer the other; it's a matter of personal choice.
No, "people" is the plural of "persons". "Three persons" is not proper English
One person, two or more persons or two or more people. Take your choice from these two correct plurals, and let others make theirs.
You are correct! A group of three people would include persons numbering a total of three. (Unless one of them chooses to be a stalk of celery.) ;-D
Probably because the use is considered antiquated. The countable vs uncountable rule is a real rule, but it's also a rule that started to die out around the Victorian era. Living languages have a lot of shift.
Ultimately, language is for communication, so I say go with whichever is most appropriate to the folks with whom you are trying to communicate.
FULL DISCLOSURE: Native English speaker - US, Southern Appalachian dialect. Other uses of English may vary. Advice about Spanish should be taken with a grain of salt.
I doubt any English speaker will misunderstand either "people" or "persons", both being perfectly normal current usage.
Lol, Well I suppose all of the antiques haven't turned to dust yet, which would include some of us Old Smokey Mtn. stump jumpers. :-D
For three people. Persons is used for a group of people. EX: They are American persons.
Duolingo sets up a discussion area so students can help each other learn. I do not think telling others to "shut up" is a helpful use of this space.
And THERE'S something called spelling. And more importantly, the equality of 3 persons of 3 people has been established by many on this forum.
I did indeed report Dl's error/ oversight about "persons". I invite other persons to do the same.
with reference to restaurants,waiters, and waitresses -- "for a party of three"
I deliberately chose the translation "persons" for "personas" instead of "people" for two different sentences in this exercise, even though I knew DL would (mistakenly) count it wrong, so I could report they were marking a correct translation wrong - "persons" is just as correct as "people". If enough of us do this, DL should learn that "persons" is ALSO correct English.
....in what country do we say, "3 persons"? I don't get why everyone is so upset over this
Yeah I am in Canada and no one say "persons" for more than one person! It is "people". I would look at someone funny if they told me "for three persons". Lol. Sheesh
Vocabulary choices may vary regionally. I have never had anyone look at me funny for saying "persons" - although I did have someone lecture me about using "perhaps" instead of "maybe" - she maintained "perhaps" was pretentious.
Well, yeah, maybe it's something like a dialect.. I haven't heard about persons before. Thank you! :)
As of 2018-09-15 on the Android app, "three persons" still is considered incorrect.
"For three persons" is good. So is "for three people". If DL doesn't allow it, report their mistake with the report button.
Hmmm...I'd said, "For three persons", which should've been accepted. Duolingo could've replied with: Another correct solution: For three people. They allow "persons" when translating from French; they ought to allow it when translating, thusly, from Spanish.
I didn't; since I didn't realize, before now, that to "report' wasn't the same thing as negatively commenting on something. I do now know that, in the case I'm correct about wording/words, etc, to click on "report". Live & learn! Or...¡vive y aprende!
"I did indeed report Dl's error abut 'persons'. I invite others to do the same." When I posted the foregoing two months ago, two persons downvoted me - guess it must be because I left the "o" out of "about". I've gone back and corrected it.
Lrtward, you are an official moderator, right? If so, are you able to bring to the attention of the carbon-based lifeforms at DL (as opposed to to the silicon-based) that "three persons" is also a correct translation so it should also be accepted? Many persons in this discussion would be grateful if you would do so. A good many persons have pushed the report button about this over several months now with no results discernible yet.
It is unclear whether they want the Spanish pronunciation to be correct or the English translation of the sentence in these exercises.
DL just hasn't caught up yet to the fact that "persons" is a correct English choice here. Push the report button.
The discussion started when I commented on a translation question in the Duolingo exercises that asked for the the English transtation for the sentence "Una mesa para tres personas." my answer was "a table for three PERSONS". Duolingo"s translation is a table for three PEOPLE. I disagreed. The direct translation for personas is persons, the direct translation for people is gentes. You would think for teaching purposes especially beginners you wouldn't confuse the issue by not using direct translations for examples.
Well, I prefer three "persons" myself, but "people" is also a legitimate plural for "person".
Three persons should be accepted
Yes Dulingo, both a answers are correct...persons or people...each represents more than one...
Good heavens. For at least ten months, persons on this list have been reporting that "for three persons" should be included as a correct answer. How long before the real live persons at DL notice that we are reporting this? Keep pushing that report button!
Yes, but DL is being slow to react. Be sure to report it by pushing the "report" button. The more persons who report this, the sooner DL will fix this.
You would not be "wrong" is the sense that "for three persons" is perfectly good English, used by many persons who are well-educated native speakers who speak English correctly. However, if you did use "for three persons", you would, alas, join a number of persons whose perfectly standard English usage of "persons" DL has not yet added to the correct answers which they accept. If you read this discussion in full, you will discover that many persons on this list are wondering what on earth is taking DL so long to react to the numerous notifications by report button clicking that "my answer should be accepted". I am one of those persons who is getting a little frustrated by DL's non-responsiveness on this matter.
Of course it should. I hope you pressed the report button. We are hoping that if enough persons point out there is another correct answer (by pressing the report button), DL will eventually realize they are treating a correct answer as if it were an error and fix this exercise. How many reports does it take to get the programmers' attention?
Of course it's okay. Be sure to hit the report button under the exercise to point out that "persons" is a perfectly correct plural of "person", used by a goodly number of persons who are well-educated native speakers of English. DL depends on the persons who are DL students to report when they need to add another alternative answer. Help the good folks at Duolingo by reporting that "For three persons" is a good answer" which needs to be accepted. Duolingo is a good course; it's up to us to help them make it even better. So hit those report buttons - it's the least we can do.
This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts about Duolingo. "For three persons" is counted wrong simply because the word that they want is people, not persons, although persons is a correct translation of personas.
Yes, one hopes they will eventually correct this, although persons have been reporting it for over year now, I believe. I do hope you pushed the "report button under the exercise.
'For three persons' is also perfectly acceptable when reserving a table or place at at restaurant.
"three persons" still not accepted as of July 2019 despite all these reports (and now mine)
This persons/people discussion is very intense, I see.
This quote from Merriam-Webster might solve the dispute:
"The word people, is so very general, that it cannot be connected with a determinate number; as for instance, four, five, or six people; but that of persons may."
A determinate number of individuals = persons
An undeterminate number of individuals = people or alternatively persons, though persons are mostly considered archaic.
Since the sentence is about a determinate number of individual (three), and the quote clearly says that you cannot use "people" for a determinate number of individuals, the only correct way to say it is: "for three PERSONS"
I am one of those crusading for DL to finally - after OVER a year - pay attention to all the [report button] reports that their not accepting "for three persons" is flatly WRONG and to correct this. I cannot imagine what is taking them so long! The moderator tells us the powers that be who can fix this do not read the discussions; they only read the report button materials. Well, they don't seem to be reading those either! I'd hate to think they just don't care. They really need to do better. All that said, the usage "for three people", while not preferable, is common enough, as far as I have experienced, that "for three people" should ALSO be accepted.
I agree, that it should be accepted due to being so common, though it is technically wrong. But it a mystery to me that they refuse to accept the grammatically correct version.
I don't get it, once you want us to translate it as people, the other as persons. Make your decision
This is a case where persons have a choice - translate it either way; they are both right. You can say "maybe" or "perhaps"; they are both right. Or say "maybe" (or "people") today and "perhaps" (or "persons") tomorrow. Since both are correct, it doesn't matter which you choose - just don't hurl denunciations at persons who make a different vocabulary choice. Just because I say "happy" doesn't mean I have to tell you your "glad" is "bad grammar" (vocabulary choice, actually), or that "no native English speaker would ever say 'glad' " (or "persons") - when obviously some native English speakers DO - they are posting to tell you so. As the old song says, "You say 'to-MAY-to', and I say 'to-MAH-to...' ". It doesn't have to be a battle.
I'm not talking about a linguistic choice, I know very well that I can use either of them, I'm saying if you write one instead of other they will give you an error. "Para tres personas" they want "For three people", "Una mesa para tres personas" they want "A table for three persons".
Oh, I'm sorry; I misunderstood. The only advice I can give about the so-called "error" message - when there was no actual error - is to keep on reporting it with the report button until DL get around to fixing their softwear choices here.
@ WasfiAkab: Both answers should be accepted, people and persons. There's nothing about to make any decisions, the fact is quite clear.
I though personas meant persons and gente meant people. so why is it "for three people" and not "for three persons"
That is certainly one of the correct translations. Another correct translation is "for three persons".
I just finished Level 4 for Restaurants, section 1. The examples/questions seemed to get easier rather than more difficult. The endless amount of mindless repetition is useless, educationally unsound, and time consuming. Duo, your "new" format is dreadful. Even for middle and high school students to whom the "new" Duo appears to be aimed.
So far, Melody, this is true for every question I've encountered with the new Duolingo format. Dumb downed from the previous format. And you'll get this question repeatedly as you move to "harder" questions.
as a insensitive american i always find it funny when people have a level in English
It isn't actually wrong. The DL bot just hasn't been reprogrammed by the real persons yet. Keep pushing that report button!
That's because Duo wants you to use the word for three rather than the number. This is to make sure you really understand it.
I still like "persons" and will continue to be among the persons who use it.
"Person" refers to one human. For three humans, "person" needs an "s" on the end - "three persons". Or you could say "three people".
I accidentally typed tree instead of three. It made me mad that it didnt accept one typo!!!
As a conjugation of "parar", yes. "Para" is the he, she, you (formal) form of "parar" in the present tense (and the you (informal) form in the imperative).
Duolingo can't read the numbers. I wrote, for 2 people and this was accepted.
Ya' know what folks, in the world I live in we just say (for example) 'a table for three'. Forget 'people' or 'persons'.
Well, it's ONE correct answer - "for three persons" is another correct answer.
Yes, "for three people" is a good translation - as is "for three persons." Some persons choose the first, others the second. The persons who choose the first have a good translation. So do the persons who choose the second. Some persons do not have "persons" in their idiolect, judging from this discussion; other persons obviously do have "persons"in theirs.
I do not see how "for three persons" is awkward in English. Sounds perfectly normal to me.
Use Para whenever you are doing something for someone's benefit or giving something to someone.
Let's say a table is being prepared for three people [a three-person setting] [Para tres personas] Esta mesa es para Ustedes. This table is for you [plural]. (Y'all)
"For three people" is the most common and totally correct way to say this in English.
It may be true that "people" is more commonly used than "persons" as a plural for "person" - I do not have statistics on the frequency of usage. "For three persons" may possibly be less common; whether or not it is less common does not change the fact that both phrases - "for three persons" and "for three people" are "totally correct way[s] to say this in English" or the fact that DL should accept both "persons" and "people" as a correct English translation of "personas". Presumably DL will eventually get around to correcting this omission, although it does seem to be taking a long time. Since this a good FREE service for those persons who wish to learn a foreign language, we should be patient and not criticize DL too harshly for the delay.
Who goes to a restaurant and says "I want a table for three persons"? Common sense.. And proper grammar should play a part somewhere.. DL teaches you "las personas" is "the people" not "the persons". Good grief! Why do people make learning a new language more difficult than it needs to be?
Unfortunately when it comes to "three persons" DL is teaching incorrect English. "three persons" IS perfectly correct, just as "three people" is - no more, no less. Learning a new language will indeed be more difficult when DL makes errors such as mistakenly claiming "three persons" is incorrect English. It just ain't so. Good grief, indeed!
For someone claiming to know proper grammar, your use of "ain't" sticks out like a sore thumb.
DL uses colloquial American English for translations. While there may be a few people who speak so overly formal, most of America does not. It is not wrong, but it is not colloquial speech either thusly not accepted.
Oh.. "It ain't accepted."
I was obviously being facetious. At least I thought it was obvious. Good grief, again.
Yes, because words on a screen conveys ones voice fluctuations and facial expressions to tell readers how the message is meant to be interpreted..
You point out that my "use of "ain't" "sticks out like a sore thumb". Of course it sticks out; it is not of a piece with the rest of my posting - because it is not said seriously. People of our degree of English proficiency do not use "ain't" as part of normal discourse - they are aware it is substandard as part of regular speech. I, of course, was not using it - and never do - as regular speech. I would never expect to see it so used on this forum.
And you see "por favor" where exactly in the sentence? It says "Para tres personas." It does not say, "Para tres personas, por favor." That is why you got it wrong.