I'm guessing it's because you never say 'I go to the movie often.' It's always movies. It's the English grammar that's wrong I suppose.
Analvelx, you are right that "movies," the plural, should be used because the speaker obviously means more than one movie. The English grammar of the rest of the sentence, by the way, is correct.
In english we can say ' I go very often ' or 'I very often go to the moves', we dont have to put 'very often' after the verb even if it is done in Spanish
Konrad, no it is not incorrect grammatically. The adverb(s) may precede the verb. Ex: "The teachers often assign homework." "I quickly clapped my hands to show my approval." "At the party, she merrily laughed, as if she did not have any worries, although her home life was terrible."
"I go to the movies very often." and "l very often go to the movies." and even "Very often I go to the movies." are all legitimate English sentence constructions and should be accepted translations.
Why does this not accept to the cinema instead of moviee? Americanisms seem to crop up a lot...
My understanding of the course is that it emphasizes American English and Mexican/ Central/South American Spanish, merely because that's where the vast majority of numbers of native speakers of both languages ARE.
By submitting British spellings of words like "theatre," for example, after a time, the moderators submit the differing versions as BOTH being correct. It is not meant as a slight to Brits, Aussies, Canadians, or Castilian Spaniards, etc.
"Yo voy al cine muy a menudo."
Yo = I; voy = go; al (short for a la) = to the; cine = movie; muy = very; a menudo = frequently
So you end up with I go to the movies very frequently. The grammar is the same in this case as it is in English.
What do you mean by breaking translation and grammar? Yo voy (ir) I go Al (a el) cine = to the movies Muy = very, much A menudo = often
RobertK.. Hi! I might shed some light for you about their asking questions, although they have reached high levels.
Many of us had reached levels of past tense verbs, then present participles, and other more complex lessons, when Duo apparently saw limitations in the way they were teaching, and COMEPLETELY re-made the learning tree! So, like me, they probably were nearing the last 8 or 10 lesson topics (all with multiple lessons), and had to start over to make the "learning tree" remain "gold." Now, after you've received a "crown" at a certain level, the skills don't disappear with disuse, as they used to do. But, the early "Crown system" lessons were like a big review (but very helpful in developing an "ear" for what to expect to hear in sentences), but by now we've forgotten many things that were freshly learned in the previous version.
I looked ahead at the things Duo plans to teach, and a LOT of lesson topics have been added, which they must have felt were things we should really know. It may take me years to get through it all, but I do this at a casual level for my own enjoyment, so I do like grandmother taught me, and just "keep on keeping on"! * ¡Buena suerte!*
Thank you for your brilliant explanation, as I too have been wondering about this. I also love your last paragraph - my sentiments exactly! Keep enjoying!
Do you mean "break down," as in "break into smaller understandable parts?" Although I understand what you mean by "break," jigar.durgai, no native English speaker would use the verb "break" this way.
If your thinking literally, which too many people here are doing. No one on english would express this thought that way and you wouldnt teach someone to say it that way. So why should Duolingo accept that as the answer.
Probably because there's a lot of things Duolingo excepts as natural which aren't. Such as "Wearing" purses.
It is a common way to express it in English and is used commonly by native speakers. That is why Duolingo should accept it.
Sorry but no, we do not say this. Very awkward language that mixes tenses.
English Present Progressive Tense (am going) is used for ongoing actions that may or may not continue to happen, neochronomo. Spanish Present Continuous Tense (estoy yendo), although translating literally to English Present Progressive Tense, has the more limited meaning of only happening during a specific stretch of time that is occurring right now.
So, the ongoing nature of "I am going" in English, clashes with the adverbs "very often," which are adverbs of degree. There is a disconnect of understanding because readers expect "am going" to be ongoing or not, and also expect "very often" to indicate frequency. This mixed message is what makes native speakers prefer the sentence construction of "I go to the movies/cinema often.
Better to use simple present tense, jhjaffin. English present tense can be used for an ongoing action that has no foreseeable end, such as in "I go to the movies often."
Also, when "movie" is used, it means a specific film. When "cinema" is used, it means the place where movies are seen. That is why the sentence can use either "cinema" or "movies" to convey the same thought, but "cinema" should be singular and "movies" should be plural.
I say 'not very often' but the 'very' is superfluous when just used with 'often' and sounds ridiculous.
I agree that using "very" is superfluous because the adverb "often" already conveys the same idea. However, generously using adverbs is a matter of personal style, especially when a writer wants to employ a loose style rather than a tight one. So yes, the "very" in this sentence is redundant, but sometimes a meaning needs to be stressed emphatically, sometimes a folksier tone is wanted, and sometimes both.
what is the difference between al and a la? or can you use them interchangeably?
'al' is just the contraction of 'a el'. For a feminine noun after you would say 'a la', and for a masculine you would say 'a el' which can then be shortened to 'al' which is easier to say.
This is an expression. A menudo meand : often, frequently. Example: leo mis correos electrónico a menudo,
Why do you need the in here? My head is so messed up by all the Latin language studying that I'm forgetting my English. Why to the cinema, not to cinema, when there's to work without the the written al trabajo in Spanish?
I could be wrong but I believe this is one of those language things without a specific rule, it's just colloquially understood. In English we go to work and to school, yet we go to the theater, to the park, to the office.
I was afraid of getting this answer. Alrighty, I'm just gonna suck it up and learn them by heart.
Actually I reread your question and I entirely missed the real answer. What I said is true in English, but your example of "al trabajo" in Spanish actually includes the article. "Al" is short for "a el" which means "to the". Spanish seems to use articles a lot more than English.
I'm very sorry for the miscommunication, although I did begin with "I could be wrong" haha.
No worries, my question was about inconsistency in using the articles in translations. You answered just that!
The word order, sounds quite strange to me. It's probably not wrong, but places emphasis on the sentence that's strange when it's isolated out of context.
In english, it should be" i go to the movies often" for it to be correct grammatically
To say I go to the movies very often sounds fragmented but to say I go to the movies frequently or I often go to the movies is acceptable in English.