Translation:A lot of people had died in that place.
The sentence I just got before this was talking about somebody's whole family being killed...
DL needs therapy.
I would really like to know why the subject is after the verb. It sounds vaguely Yoda-ish.
I thought others might also want to know some generalizations about word order so here's a link that may be helpful. Emphasis appears to the best fit.
"la gente," though it refers to many people, its a singular noun. You can think of it as "the crowd" or "a group of people." Notice how in English you'd have (I;m using present perfect here to indicate the difference) "Many people have died here" vs "a large crowd/group of people has died here" (I know it sounds a bit odd, but jsut trying to illustrate this)
can i say, mucha gente habia muerto en ese lugar.....? is semantic order important?
Who knows? :) It is confusing. It seems that either order is "OK" but that the subject often follows the verb, especially when sentences get longer and more complicated.
(my non expert opinion) I would have used that order for a statement, and would have used the duolingo order for a question.
I'm confused as to why this isn't muchas personas I remember someone on here once saying that gente refers more to a people rather than some people. Like germans or republicans for example
In some cases either is acceptable. I think "muchas personas" should be OK here. Did you use "habian" with it, or "habia"?
Can someone explain to me why 'mucha' is used here in preference to 'mucho'. Is it infering that the people who died are all women?
Gente is a feminine noun. That's all. No mention of the genders of the individual people.
Please if anyone can explain, why don't we need direct object pronoun 'la' before verb phrase? I am really trying hard to understand when to use them and when not to. Just seems random sometimes?
When you use a direct object pronoun, it is because an action is being performed on the object. In this case, many people died; nothing is happening to them.
Does it have to refer to 'la gente'? Can't it be 'I had killed a lot of people in that place' or 'He had killed a lot of people at that place'?
The meaning of the words "había muerto" is "had died". To say "had killed", you would say "había matado" instead.
I am not exactly sure what you question is. But I understand one thing: Your translation is wrong. If you are fluent in English, then why would you write an English sentence like this?
Remove the word, there. You should place the subject of your English sentence at the beginning of the sentence.
Wrong tense. You failed to create a sentence in the past perfect tense.
Había is the general 1st- and 3rd-person singular imperfect tense of the helping verb haber, so it's mainly used in forming the past perfect tense. This conjugation form is usually translated as "I had", "he had", "she had", "it had", or "you had" (usted form).
The main verb in this sentence is morir - to die. It's an intransitive verb, so it doesn't take an object, so the only person mentioned here - mucha gente - must be the subject. It's the people who had died, not she.
The whole sentence resembles: "A lot of people in this place have died" yet this phrase is not accepted? Fix your ❤❤❤❤ Duolingo.
Don't oversimplify. You neglected to explain that muerto is not even a conjugation.
Muerto is the participle form of morir, simple as that. This sentence is a past-perfect sentence, so it needs an imperfect form of haber plus the participle of the full verb. Whether you call the participle form a conjugation is up to you, but the asker clearly knew that a participle form should be used here.
Muerto is the participle form of morir, simple as that.
The idea of simplicity is an issue of disagreement between the two of us. As I already told you before, it is not as simple as that.
quote: Whether you call the participle form a conjugation is up to you... unquote
Try not to lose sight of the fact that my reply is my effort to help you and also my effort to help all the readers. Whatever we collectively choose to call it is not up to me alone. If we work together, our dialogue can be about both you and me and everyone ― not all about me alone.
Here is a link to a web page where we can all read the opinion of someone else who has an opinion about whether a participle is a conjugation or not.
...but the asker clearly knew that a participle form should be used here.
Do you want to deny that Juicy_Maffews asked how the verb is conjugated? If you turn a blind eye to a portion of the words in the post by Juicy_Maffews, then you can pretend that Juicy_Maffews "clearly" understood whatever. But do your readers believe you?
I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, ultimately. I mean, what's not simple about muerto being the participle of morir?
If you think you could have answered the asker's question better, then please do so.
Ryagon described his answer as "simplest", which it was. If his answer had been inaccurate then you would have every right to correct him, but you are telling him how he should answer based solely on information you deem particularly important.
I actually think your point is one worth making, but it could have been made as a response to the original question without criticising a valid answer made by an excellent contributor to this forum.
If his answer had been inaccurate... unquote:
This is the central issue that you and I are disagreeing about. Our disagreement is this: I think his answer was inaccurate (partially). But you think his answer was accurate.
...you would have every right to correct him, but you are telling him how he should answer based solely on information you deem particularly important.
Your words (in the preceding quote) do not make sense to me. Perhaps this is because you did not articulate what you really meant to say. I don't know what you were trying to tell me (in the quote). Are you saying there was some information that I neglected to consider? If this is what you meant, then why didn't you tell me what I overlooked?
...your point is one worth making, but it could have been made as a response to the original question without criticising a valid answer... unquote
Try to understand my point of view. The purpose of my post was to tell him that he made a mistake. The purpose of my post was to criticize his answer. I feel that I achieved a measure of success. Next time, I plan to do the same thing. And I believe that I am doing good deeds.
I imagine that I might eventually learn something from you if I keep reading your posts. But this particular post that you wrote does not say anything that causes me to reconsider.
Thanks Phillip. My wording was clumsy in that second quote. I was saying that Ryagon's answer was not inaccurate, but merely lacking information that you personally deemed important. As he had described his answer as "simplest" I believe it was unfair to state it was lacking information that many would consider non-vital. You may believe that information was vital, but given that it pertained to the wording of the original question rather than the answer obviously being sought, I don't.
Even though I consider it non-vital, I do agree that it was information worth adding, and I wrongly believed that this was the primary intention of your post. As you have stated, the actual purpose of your post was to instruct Ryagon on how he should have answered.
Again, you and I differ on this matter. I'm all for additional information, but would never presume to tell someone how they should have answered unless their answer was inaccurate. Ryagon answered the core question in the simplest possible way. He did not address the incorrect wording of that question, but this does not make his answer inaccurate.
You may still disagree with that, and that's fine. It's clear that you are intelligent, probably well educated, perhaps even an educator, and I don't doubt I will learn something from your posts. That said, I think most people on the DL forum would rather learn from constructive posts than confrontational ones. While I love debate, many DL users consider it unwanted and irrelevant, and when there is no Spanish being discussed I understand that perspective.
The Spanish course is very oversaturated with possible answers, so you might have to look for a synonym, like "spot" or "location".
I'm not so sure that ''had died'' sounds right, unless the people were the walking dead. When would anyone say this, rather than simply ''a lot of people died in that place'' ? I guess it sounds odd in Spanish too.
Past-perfect sentences always require a bit of context, because, by definition, that tense refers to an event that happened before a reference point in the past. For example: "No one wanted to move to the town because many people had died there due to an unknown illness years before."
"Many people in that place had died." It sounds a bit weirder, but is also a fine sentence. It's not a proper translation of the English, though.