It seems unnatural to say "Hilo rains" rather than "It's raining in Hilo". I get that in this sentence, Hilo serves as the subject of the sentence, but wouldn't the latter be more idiomatic in English? (I can't report the English part of the sentence as incorrect. Not sure why)
in Hawaiian, "ua ʻo Hilo" is a general statement: Hilo rains. to say it's raining in Hilo would give it a sense of time, and in Hawaiian, there's different ways to say things about past/present/future. it is raining in Hilo would be a present tense sentence, which means you'd use a ke/nei sentence pattern: "ke ua nei i Hilo" -- it's raining in Hilo
Thank you - I agree, and I think the fact that it is a general statement in Hawaiian is what might be what is confusing in translation. As (nvi.) "ua" can mean rain; to rain; rainy. As miacomet mentioned, In this case the 'o in the statement is marking Hilo (a place) as the subject of the sentence. Because there is an 'okina before the o, it is not "Ua o Hilo" which would be translated as "The rain/rains of(belonging to) Hilo," or I suppose quite literally "Hilo's rain(s)." Additionally, something else that can be confusing with this sentence is the English word RAIN. The word is already a pluralizer for multiple rain drops falling together, but RAINS (as a noun) implies that there is more than one rainfall, and RAINS (as a verb) is 3rd person present. Therefore, I apologize for the long commentary to simply say yes, I agree with sheldonabril's statement regarding: Hilo rains. It's just so exciting to me to discuss the nuances of it!
Beginner here, and I apologize for this slightly off-topic question, but in reference to your (sheldon.abril) "ke ua nei i Hilo," would you explain ke and nei in your sentence? I would think ua would take ka, but it seems to be interacting with nei in some way. Mahalo.
To put in my two-penny worth, "Hilo rains" actually sounds as if it is (some) hilo that is falling from the sky like rain, rather than water falling from the sky on someone/someplace/something called Hilo. That may be my dialect (modified East London in UK) speaking, mind.
"Hilo is rainy" sounds to me like a general time-free statement about Hilo's climate, not what it is like there now - and it is the latter which I assume is what is intended.
I would always say "It's raining in Hilo."
Ua ‘o Hilo. is a complete sentence. It means Hilo rains. or It rains in Hilo. You can also say Ua i Hilo. for It rains in Hilo. Once you put the word the in front, it is no longer a sentence - ka ua i Hilo. That should not be a complete sentence, and "the rain in Hilo" should not be an acceptable translate for Ua ‘o Hilo, at least in my opinion.
It is not appropriate to translate this as Hilo rains as that is improper English. Literal translations, while fascinating, are eeroneous especially when they are not used in other translations on the site. However, guven the number of comments to this effe t and the fact that the Hilo rains translation remains present does not fill me with hope that anyone at Duolingo is pating attention. Hannah disappointed.
I do not understand the down votes. This was expressed maturely with coherent reasons. Frankly, I tend to agree. I understand that the writers are trying to bait the learners into using correct grammar and lexical choices by tweaking the translations to somewhat match Hawaiian. Still yet, it may confuse non-Native English speakers, and there are many learning Hawaiian here, and thus, it would be better to let the learners air out their confusion in the comments sections instead. ‘O ia ko‘u wahi mana‘o.
When I typed "Ua ka Hilo," the correction I received was not "Ua ʻo Hilo," but "Ua ʻa Hilo." I know that in Hawaiian, there are o-class inalienable vs. a-class alienable possessors (i.e., koʻu vs. kaʻu); is this related, or entirely different? In either case, can someone please explain why ʻa is used, as the possession of rain would not be Hilo's choice, and ʻa is acting as a subject marker? Mahalo.