1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "Ellas van a lograr comer."

"Ellas van a lograr comer."

Translation:They are going to be able to eat.

March 30, 2013



I wonder if "They're going to get to eat" would be acceptable.


That would be perfectly acceptable English


not accepted 26/02/2019


Fluent2B And at the same time I do think your solution is not wrong. We would say that in English and it means the same thing.


it is not a good idea to try and make "word for word" translations. it almost never works.


Well ... I have the opposite experience with Duolingo .. I got better results when I began translating word for word ...


you might have gotten a better experience from doing that but it is not a good tactic for learning or translating languages. it works better if you read the whole sentence and get the whole context.


This is Duolingo, right?


I disagree. I would have a bit of trouble calling to mind that they use the phrase, "They are going to achieve eating" (literal translation!) to indicate that they will be able to eat in the future. In contrast, "They are going to get to eat," reminds me that English is just as ridiculous as any other language. I like this. Mostly, though, I believe that as long as I speak the correct Spanish aloud, it matters not what tricks I use in my head to remember the proper grammar.


Using "get" to mean "to be able to" is probably too far down the alternative definition list to be acceptable.


EDIT: removed incorrect statement about tense.


I actually think that the difference here is that to be able to eat covers more circumstances that to get to est. To say that somebody is going to get to eat is say that time, food, and permission will be available for them to eat. This does cover many circumstances, although saying that they are going to be able to eat doesn't limit them. On the other hand if people are let's say on a cruise and terribly seasick, you wouldn't say that they didn't get to eat, only that they weren't able to eat and when they got off the ship they will be able to est.

As for your point about the present perfect, you chose the wrong definition there. This would actually be an INTRANSITIVE use of get and would match 3 à under the intransitive definitions.


Thanks for pointing out my mistake on the tense.
I have removed that part of my comment.

I also appreciate your reasoning on the given translation.
We all would get more benefit from DL If we focus more on what they are trying to teach us rather than what alternatives they did not include as an accepted answer.

  • 1721

Exactly right. Hear, understand, repeat, and don't overthink it. Just a few minutes every day does it.


This is what I wrote and they counted it as wrong.


I hope you reported it!

  • 1721

9/5/14 reported again.


4/17/2014 "They are going to get to eat" is still reported incorrect. Sent another request to add it the database.


Would 'to get' in this (above) case be conseguir instead of lograr? Could someone else chime in?


no, it is not. I submit the sentence and Duo mark it wrong


Its not i just tried it. june 13 2015


This seems weird to me why not use poder?


Duolingo is tryting to teach us alternative ways of saying things because people use alternative ways of saying things in real life all the time and we need to be able to understand them all to function well. The ultimate purpose of this is to teach us the language.


Knowing multiple ways to say similar things isn't useful if you don't understand the subtle ways they differ.

I think the distinction between these is that poder focuses more on possibility of doing a thing -- having the power to do it -- whereas lograr focuses more on the end-point of the process of doing it. Hence the translations as "achieve" or "manage".

Él puede correr diez kilómetros. He can run ten kilometers. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll bother to actually do it.

Él logra correr diez kilómetros. He manages/achieves running ten kilometers. He has in fact done that.

Possibly a native speaker can confirm my understanding of this.


I still don't quite get it. They have not eaten yet. They can eat. So shouldn't poder work in this case?


Think of this translation as " They are FINALLY GOING TO GET TO EAT." Like they have tried and tried and now finally their dreams have come true and the food is before them at last.


I think you've got the right idea. The word finally is basically implying that there is some context, and for some reason they haven't been able to eat for awhile.


It's not bad English when used in context. Eg. The free buffet ends at 10. They arrived at 10.30 and missed out, but they've spoken to the manager and they are going to [get] / [ be able] to eat.


That's a good trick but FINALLY is not in this sentence. So they are going to get to eat still sounds like very bad english to me.


Fluent2B, good answer!


Because "to be able to" isn't really a proper definition of lograr. The dictionary popup here is misleading, because it isn't giving a definition of the word, but rather, the translation in context.

A literal translation would be "they will achieve to eat"... which basically means that they will gain or obtain the ability to eat. Thus, synonyms for lograr are actually words like obtener or ganar, rather than poder.


So based on this explanation, the more proper translation of this Spanish sentence is "they will manage to eat".


They will successfully eat. (This is the meaning, but I doubt DL's computer will recognize it.)


That answer was accepted 25 mayo 2017


But lograr in the preterite really does translate best as was able to. Poder and lograr have close meanings anyway.


But poder is one of the verbs that change meaning in the preterite. It means managed to which implies success only after some problem.


So, if you don't want to imply that difficulty, you must use lograr.


what a ridiculous use of lograr


I very much agree. I am fluent in spanish, and speak daily with natives and lograr isnt used all that much to say things like "to get". Instead its used more when you have achieved something like, we achieved climbing the mountain, or i achieved the gold prize in the beauty contest. But when wanting to say "they will be able to eat", or "they get to eat", you would say "ellos van a poder comer, o ellos van a conseguir/obtener comer. I would say conseguir, obtener or even coger would be the best verb choices here. Be careful with coger though. It does mean to get, but it it commonly know for grabing and in a dirty way...kinda rapey.


I would say that outside Spain, no one should use coger in a non-swearing context, because Spain is the only country that uses it as an innocuous word.


When I was doing Rosetta Stone for Latin American Spanish, it had sentences like "Ella va a coger dinero en un banco" and stuff... would it not be right to say that in all countries?


I would generally avoid it. In the context you mention, it's pretty obvious that you're "picking up" money in a bank and not "f***ing" money in a bank, but it's still safer to just avoid it and use sacar instead.


Donde puedo coger un autobus.....LOL. I wouldn't say it that way in CA.


Okay, so I would say "Ella va a sacar dinero en un banko"? I wonder why Rosetta Stone used "coger"? The fact that it's used that way in Spain doesn't help, since the program is for Latin American Spanish...

  • 1721

The way the Brazilians pronounce "correr" sounds exactly like "coger" to me. Coger is easy. You don't use it. ("A coger" is bad. Take out the space and bingo, it's one of the loveliest words in the language). What's maddening are the little gotchas like "pito" en some parts of Mexico, "bicho" in Puerto Rico (the male organ) and "papaya" in Cuba (yep), "sapo" en some parts of Ecuador, and "maceta" in some parts of the Dominican Republic (female organ).


Un platino in Nicaragua.

  • 1721

¿Un platino? Como el metal? Es una palabrota?


Sorry, typo. I meant platano(accent on the a). It's their version of a banana except about a foot long and green(must be cooked).

  • 1721

Now I understand.


This use of the double infinitive is very interesting.


Same as in english with double infinitives. To be able to eat. Lograr comer.


is this really a realistic spanish sentence? It is ridiculous in English and hard to figure out how one would use it in real life.


So, it's been a while since I studied Spanish, but I thought you couldn't have two infinitives in a row? What's the reason for allowing it here?


Instead of achieving sentience, they will achieve eat-ience.


How come sometimes there is the additional "a" and sometimes not ("a logar a comer")? I seem not to be able to figure out what is the rule. Any thoughts please?


my understanding is that the verb "ir" always takes "a" before the following infinitive. for other verbs, some take "a", some "de", some "con", some "en" and some nothing - you have to memorize them - here is a good aid - http://grammar.spanish.sbc.edu/verb_prep_infLesson.html


What a strange sentence! After a form of the verb "ir", "go", it has not 1 but 2 infinitives!. Is this common in Spanish?

  • 1721

We do it too: i.e. He's going to want to eat (or worse: He's going to want to go out to eat). But Spanish often uses the infinitive where English uses the gerund, so they're inclined to use them more.


"They are going to succeed to eat" -

Can it be also an alternative translation?


No. That doesn't make any sense in English.

  • 1721

Maybe not to you, but I put "They are going to succeed in eating" shooting for more literal. That flopped.


I almost did, seems like poder would have made more sense for the translation that they wanted


lograr is appropriate in this setting? If there is a more common way to say this sentence, that is what should be used... just saying I have never heard it like this.


It shows only examples of the infinitive usage e.g. "El punto es que quizá puedan lograr comer menos..." I looked for voy/vas/van a logar comer and found nothing in the entire corpus. This leads me to wonder if this is really standard Spanish. The same with the "conseguir + verb" form - examples with just that, but none with the phrasal future form: (ir) a conseguir + verb. If this is standard, then what register? informal/literary/ regional?

  • 1721

I tried searching for "va a lograr". Most of those had a noun or a period after the lograr, but some had infinitives p.e. https://es.eurosport.yahoo.com/video/messi-va-lograr-convertir-la-010052056.html That one was european, but an angry “Nadie va a lograr callarme” came from Argentina. I'd guess it's pretty common.


"¡Y van a comer yo! !Ay díoooooooos¡"


How is lograr mainly used as a verb in a Spanish sentence?


Would it not make more sense to say 'ellas van a poder comer'? Doesn't 'be able to' make more sense that 'achieve'? Would either be correct in conversation?


translation sucks

  • 1721

In general? I agree. There's a guy here who's been translating since he was 5. I let him do it.


I think the translation "get" is as good as "able", and I think that "poder" would be an acceptable substituted for "lograr".


All of the other sentences accepted "They WILL" and They ARE GOING" as acceptable responses. Why is my response in correct? I responded to the multiple choice question, and selected both answers. Thank you.


could poder be used instead?


The online spanish/english translator that I use for cross checking translates "poder," better than "lograr" for this sentence.


So there is no 'a' in a second use of consecutive infinitives?


Watch out, Dyna, there are a lot of verbs that demand the preposition "a" between infinitives. Others demand an "en" and others a "de." Two even demand "con." Sueno con ir a Chile. (I dream of going to Chile.)


Dyna, I believe it is because the first "a" was for the verb to be in "future phrasal" tense for this lesson, and the second one was an infinitive that includes the "a" in the translation "to eat."


should this be lograran comer?


MarkWest this sentence structure introduces the phrases 'will be able' and 'are going to' both referring to doing something in the very near future. So van + a +infinitive combination enables us to do that. Then the second infinitive defines what that something is.


Hi, it's DL's translation that seems a bit off. Van a lagrar = they are going to be able. Lagraran (with accent over final A) = they will be able - and that is DL's translation. But what do i know?!!!


If you're saying "lograrán" -- future tense -- you should note that use of the simple future, rather than the phrasal future (ir a inf) would be possible here (and I think should probably be accepted), but would be unusual. For near future, if you include a future-oriented time word like mañana, you can actually just use the present tense. Aside from that, phrasal future (ir+a+inf) is generally preferred for the type of statement where you're describing something that's definitely expected to happen.

You'd be more likely to use future tense talking about more speculative things. Also, to ask speculative questions or assert suppositions about the present -- but we do that a bit in English as well. "¿Acabas de correr diez kilómetros? Tendrás sed. Tome mi agua." "You just ran ten km? You'll be thirsty. Take my water."

There are a couple other uses described here: http://users.ipfw.edu/jehle/courses/FUTURE.HTM


MarkWest - I would like to offer more but it seems like you are seeing something I haven't. Maybe we need someone else to review and see if they can be of more help. I hope I have helped and not hindered your understanding. If you want to comeback I will do what I can.


rmcgwm, hey, you are always helpful. I now realise this question, Van a - comes up twice with 2 different DL translations. They are going to, and, They will. Both future, but written differently in Spanish.... i think!


That is correct. Sometimes, it will only accept one as an answer, I believe, but if it´s the multiple choice one (with 3 possible boxes to check) I think I recall it requiring both answers.


That is one of the drawbacks of DL relying on computer generated traslation. Sentense makes little sense


lograr means get as well as be able to???

  • 1721

It can. The one that's screwy is "get". We use it for so many very different things. When to use it in a translation is part of the art.


How often is " van a lograr comer" used?


I wrote Ellas van a lograr a comer and Duo marked me wrong


Also wondering why a is not necessary between 'lograr' and an infinitive?


This is a little hard to know sometimes and you have to learn which expressions and combinations go with each verb. Modal verbs like querer, poder, deber and such never use a preposition before an infinitive. Probably most verbs which do use a, but some use de and a few que (like tener que to have to) The translation for I tried to eat can be either Traté de comer or intenté comer. In that case you just learn it. But to me it does make sense to me to view lograr as an auxiliary verb expressing modality when combined with another verb. When you try to eat it is clearly about both trying and eating. But managing to eat is not about managing at all. It is basically about eating. In other words in the sentences van a poder comer and van a lograr comer, lograr is expressing a similar modality to poder. Now if this convoluted explanation helps you, I am glad. Otherwise it's back to you just have to learn it.


I thought one was not to use two infinitives together


Doesn't poder mesn "to be able to"? Is it the same as lograr or is there some minor difference?

  • 1721

Lograrse means be able to.


'They are going to succeed in eating' should also be acceptable.


What's the difference between a and que?


In a perfect world I would say a means to and que means that. But the world of prepositions is far from perfect. Most prepositions have some degree of consistent translation between languages, but they really are never perfect. Many verbs use set prepositions to add another verb (non modal verbs) and there are set combinations like this one, ir+a+infinitive meaning to be going to (verb) The expression that I suspect prompted this question may be tener+que to have to. You just have to learn them as set expressions or combinations.

  • 1721

Seems simple, but I'm way over my head here :-) Are there two similar phrases you thought of, one with a and one with que? Meanings depend on the context, so you have to learn the phrase. In this exercise, it makes some sense: "van a" = "they are going to" and "a" in Spanish is usually translated as "to". "Qué" is usually "what" or "que" "that", but if a phrase has "van que", without more context, even the meaning of "van" is ambiguous - it could be the name of a person or a big truck same as in English. But, yes, I think in some areas "van que logran" could be translated "they are going to succeed", but note it's logran and not lograr.


As I said in my response, I think he was comparing ir+a+infinitive to be going to with tener+que to have to. But they are going to succeed is van a lograr. I am not sure sure if your suggestion is meaningful grammatically, but when you have Qué followed by a conjugated verb, it is either the conjugation or pronoun and would probably be translated as that or which. So your sentence would be something like They go that they manage. Prepositions are always followed by the infinitive.


Getting grammar tips from pop songs is of questionable value. I believe the phrase in question is a collquialism with sexual connotations. It is not something that you can necessarily extract a usage rule from.


Nonsense sentence...


Not at all. Scenario Your parents are coming in for the holidays (or friends who live a distance away) They have a long trip and you are discussing whether you should take them to dinner when you pick them up. You say it is a long trip, but they are going to be able to eat. When they get here they probably will want to freshen up and have drinks first.


" They will accomplish to eat" not an option?


That doesn't make sense in English.


No, I´m afraid that doesn´t work in English. To be able to, or to manage to, but not to accomplish, which I think we tend not to use before a verb.


'They are going to succeed in eating' is as good a translation as any, even if it does sound a bit 'unnatural' to the English-speaking ear.


I think this needs checking: my verbal Spanish is usually pretty good but the software rejected my speech.

  • 1721

What else was making noise in the background? I have had to move to get it to work.


I should have explained: during that session, other phrases in Spanish checked OK, both before and after that one. That's why I thought that one needed checking.


I put they are going to get something to eat - I know there was no "algo" but otherwise it's an odd statement


Lograr? What is that?


Achieve/be able to.


I wrote they are going to get to eat. But it is counted as wrong!

  • 1721

To me, that sounds just fine, but Duo is a computer system. (You can edit, you know).


I was marked wrong for typing ellos, not ellas, Am I missing something? where is the indication that "they" is femine


Was it the listening exercise rather than the written one? In the listening exercise it's clearly "ellas",


thank you for your reply Cringy, ,thinking about it, it must have been the listening one.! Maybe it's not just my body getting old, sounds as it my ears are too!!!


They are going to achieve to eat <-- es correcto, podrian ayudarme ¡ ?


Essentially that's the literal translation, but it doesn't really make sense in English. In English we would translate it essentially as the same as Ellas van a poder comer. I am assuming that a native Spanish speaker would find this sentence stronger than poder comer. It seems to indicate that there is a little more effort or luck in their being able to eat, but that may be just me reading into it from an English language perspective based on other ways we translate lograr. But whether there is some variation in tone or intensity in the two sentences, English has no similar expression that makes sense.


My error was wrong sex in Spanish. Same answer though, so why this strange tidyness?

  • 1721

I don't understand. Did you translate "they" to "ellos"? If you did and it wasn't accepted, that's an error in the program that needs to be reported.


There are two infinitives right next to each other. Isn't one supposed to be conjugated?


No, 'to be able to eat' makes sense

Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.