"Las personas no van a trabajar."
Translation:The people are not going to work.
44 Comments
- 25
- 20
- 17
- 4
- 2
"La gente no va a trabajar" is the common way of saying it in Spain.
- 25
- 25
- 389
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
- 16
- 5
- 4
- 4
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 26
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?
- 18
- 18
- 15
- 14
- 14
- 12
- 10
- 9
- 6
- 5
- 2
- 23
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
- 18
- 16
- 16
- 16
- 15
- 10
- 6
- 6
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 293
But in the sentence above I hear van in stead of pan in the exercise. Hmm :/
- 20
- 18
- 16
- 16
- 16
- 15
- 10
- 6
- 6
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 2
- 293
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?
- 25
- 25
- 25
- 25
- 25
- 14
- 6
- 1336
I think you might just be ahead of us. This lesson is for the phrasal future (going to +verb) and we haven't done the futuro tense yet so you have to use ir as in "van a trabajar" = "going to work".
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'!
- 25
- 23
- 17
- 11
- 10
- 9
- 7
- 7
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 5
- 5
- 4
- 4
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 472
"Guys" is a common way of saying "persons". Rare to hear "Those persons will not work." Quite common to hear "Those guys will not work."
- 24
In Minnesota, 'guys' often means persons/people. But there is another word for 'guy' in Spanish, 'tipo.'
- 23
Referring to groups of strangers as "you guys," even if there are women in that group, is a growing practice that was once considered so informal as be kind of rude.
- 25
- 23
- 17
- 11
- 10
- 9
- 7
- 7
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 6
- 5
- 5
- 4
- 4
- 3
- 3
- 2
- 472
This is translation. Translation must work in the REAL world of everyday life, or in specialized areas such as treaties, textbooks, academic journals, technical publications and manuals -- be to the level and standards of those specialized arenas. We simply do not use "the persons" in natural english, as much as "las personas" is used in Spanish. Instead we replace it with something else. For example "the guys", "those", "they", etc. Even if the group is all women, even a strongly womanized group like a bevy of nuns or a women's softball team even then we still call them "the guys". Okay, maybe sometimes "the gals".
- 25
- 11
- 10
- 9
I think as it is translation, that as you quite rightly say needs to work in the real world, then you need to steer clear of phrases like "The guys" which, although understood, are not used everywhere and may even come across as rude. I think that "The people" is a safer, better translation.
