Nope, your not the only one. I always have trouble with this speaker, but with this sentence, she sounded like she had just overdosed on double espressos. I realize that she is probably speaking slowly and distinctly by the standards of a native speaker. --But after I played the clip about eight times at normal speed, I had to resort to the slow-mode. I just couldn't understand her.
In Spanish the article (la or el) indicates one of two things. One, it can refer to a specific individual object (for example, "Como el pollo", I eat the chicken -- referring to a specific chicken you bought and cooked). Second, it can refer to something in a very general, universal sense (for example, "Odio la lluvia", I hate rain - referring to rain generally).
This doesn't fit either category since we're talking about various "comida" that have been prepared, and not about a specific item of food.
There are a lot of times where the pronunciation sounds completely different. After I type what I hear, I re-read it to see if it makes sense and adjust it if it doesn't. More times then not I am right for doing so and is a good way to test your knowledge of Spanish and how words are formed. I know it is frustrating, but I would recommend everyone take these inaccuracies as learning opportunities.
I know for some new learners it might be helpful the "nosotros" at the begging but, since the conjugation of the verb is already stating the person referring to ("hacemos"), wouldn't it be better to avoid the "nosotros" since it's rarely used both in spanish, so they learn they're not used together?
It's not wrong. Duo doesn't always have every possible translation in its database.
The right thing to do is to flag it on the answer page as "My answer should be accepted"; that way it will be added to the list of suggested translations and can be officially included at some point.
While this is technically a correct sentence, I think it's a rare and awkward way to put it in English -- it just feels wrong and most people will not "get" the correct English interpretation from it. Bottom line, I wouldn't use this English sentence because it would be confusing.
Just want to point out that the system will not "relook" at anything based on posts here in the discussion board. The rest of us here in the discussion are just other users like you and we can't see your answer to talk about why it is or isn't correct unless you include it here.
I put "nosotros siempre hacemos la comida muy buena." I'm not sure why its wrong. I know i have 'la' there, but the food is still a generalised statement.
Place the line in straight translation "we always make the food very well." Its still makes the same sense.
Imagine a head chef responding to criticism from his boss.
My comment's not about the pronounciation, which for the record, is still incorrect as of 15 April 2020. I'm wondering why the difference in use of article between comida and almuerzo. For eg. Hacemos comida but Hacemos el almuerzo or el desayuno.
How do I know which nouns take articles.
In English grammar, you are using "very good" to describe the act of "making," hence it should be "very well. To describe the food, you need to put "very good" before the noun
We always make very good food ==> the food is very good. We always make food very well ==> implies that you did a good job at making it.
For those saying this is bad English or that "very good" should only go before the noun -- the sentence of quegar technically is correct English -- in the sense that "we" take existing food and make that food "very good".
It's the same sentence structure as saying, for example, "we always make our son happy".
there is no word that means lovely here. The hovering words say very well when I double checked it.
comida = "food"
Food (noun, often attributive)
- a : material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy; also : such food together with supplementary substances (such as minerals, vitamins, and condiments)
b : inorganic substances absorbed by plants in gaseous form or in water solution
- nutriment in solid form
- something that nourishes, sustains, or supplies
I see nothing in the definition of food that excludes "meals, dishes drinks."
So are you arguing that we should not use the word "food" to refer to creatively combining these natural ingredients? If so, cool. But we're here to learn definitions and rules already in use in order to better communicate with those making use of them. Making up our own rules is counter-productive.
Or are you under the mistaken impression that we do not already use the word "food" in this way? If so, keep studying and please feel free to ask questions when something doesn't make sense to you.