"Potom už nikdy pracovat nemusela."
Translation:Afterwards she never had to work any more.
18 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
But did it have to be taken into account still? I mean, at this level, I think that the learners do know about the role of “už” in a Czech sentence, so that it does not have to be highlighted/emphasised more than it already does in the original Czech. On the other hand, if the English redundancy equals the Czech sentence, then I think it's fine, but from your comment, I think that this is nothing but otherwise unnecessary assistance for us learners. It somewhat reminds me of the anti-war song “Ain't gonna study war no more”, which too carries the double negation all so unusual in the modern English language. (And only present in the AAVE)
I'm a Brit. My source is....me. I have worked professionally as an editor. I'd be interested to know what other British English speakers think. So in British English I would say: "She won the lottery. She never had to work again." And in this situation, tell me what you would say, brjaga. I know there are considerable differences between American and British English.
Native US English, speaker here. I agree with ruthgrace00, "She never had to work again" definitely seems to be the most appropriate "liberal" translation. I understand that the course designers wanted to emphasize the literal aspects of the translation, but I do think the inclusion of "never" and "any more" in the same sentence should not be preferred.
'Then she never had to work any more.' 'Then' and 'Afterwards' both have the sense that something has happened, and something else happened as a result. I would suggest the difference is stylistic rather then semantic or grammatical. For example, 'afterwards' has a more storytelling feel.