"Las personas no van a trabajar."
Translation:The people are not going to work.
34 Comments
- 25
- 20
- 17
- 4
- 2
"La gente no va a trabajar" is the common way of saying it in Spain.
- 25
- 25
- 447
I am confused. Does this sentence mean that "they are not going to work", that is, they are going elsewhere (like to school)? Or that they are NOT going to work, that they refuse to do so?
"...going elsewhere, like to school" - you would use the noun "work" (el trabajo) to say that.
Ellos no van al trabajo. No van a la escuela. No van a la playa. Etc.
In this example, they are using the "ir + a + infinitive verb" construction, which is like a simple future tense.
No van a trabajar - not going to work, as in not going to perform the actions of work.
Another example: No van a comer - they are not going to eat
- 17
- 5
- 5
- 4
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 84
so: "No van a trabajar" would be "they will not work" - would that be a reasonable translation (other than different phrase construction with ir)
- 12
Okay so. La gente means "the people" in a general sense, right? BUT "Las personas" can be translated as "people" in a general sense. So is there no way to specify that you are really talking about a specific group of people?
- 19
- 18
- 15
- 14
- 14
- 12
- 10
- 9
- 6
- 5
- 2
- 11
When the noun is at the begining of the sentence it always takes an article, so only context will tell you if it is specific or not.
In this example, they are using the "ir + a + verb" construction which means "going to (do verb)"
"to work" in this sentence is the infinitive verb "trabajar"
Your sentence used "work" as a noun, so it should be "las personas no van al trabajo"
- 9
- 5
- 3
- 2
so... don't go to work="no van a ir a trabajar", and aren't going to work="no van a trabajar"? ... thanks for the help pal
"no van a ir a trabajar" = they are not going to go to work
"no van a trabajar" = they are not going to work
- 14
- 8
I wrote 'The people are not going to go to work'. Why is this wrong and what would the translation of this be?
- 13
- 10
- 8
- 8
- 7
- 6
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 2
Maybe you put "van ir" instead of "van a ir" which would be the correct way of saying it. It sounds redundant in a direct translation, "going to to go", but it is proper that way. Also Duolingo may have just been picky about your addition of an extra ir? If that is the case, then your answer would be correct and understood by speakers, but not to duolingo.
- 14
- 10
And yet when I type it calls me wrong. Make up your mind Duolingo. You're like a lady asking if her clothes are fat.
- 20
- 20
- 16
- 16
- 16
- 15
- 10
- 6
- 6
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 351
But in the sentence above I hear van in stead of pan in the exercise. Hmm :/
- 20
- 20
- 16
- 16
- 16
- 15
- 10
- 6
- 6
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 351
There seems to be a difference in normal and slow pronunciation. In slow pronunciation I definately hear her saying 'pan', while in normal pronunciation I hear 'van'. I submitted this as an error.
- 15
- 15
- 5
irán is the future form of to go. Bahhhhh Humbug!!! When are they not working, Van would be NOW. Am I as clueless as this is making me?
I answered "The persons are not going to work" because I thought "The people" would be "La gente" and my answer was rejected. Inexplicable.
- 14
- 2
Yes, seems odd without a qualifier to indicate which people are not going to work.
- 19
- 4
To me, in English. "The persons are not going to work" is correct in English. So I find it okay to translate literally to understand this phrase better. Each individual person of a group is not going to work. Its almost like "People under 21 are not allowed to enter" vs "Persons under 21 are not allowed to enter".
- 12
- 3
I type "ot" rather than "to" literally all the time and get the whole sentence incorrect. Its going ot drive me nuts.
- 16
- 2
'The people don't go to work' should be accepted. Not only is it correct, when you hover over the word 'no', it shows 'do not'!
