Just to clarify, this could also mean "They are at lunch" depending on context, right?
"Sono per pranzo", or "per il pranzo" if you're talking about a specific day's lunch. If you were to translate "I've had potatoes for lunch", though, "ho mangiato patate a pranzo" would be ok.
How am I to know that this is "I am at lunch" and not "They are at lunch"? Would both answers not be correct, considering there is not context to refer to?
Is "I am having lunch." also correct? It sounds fine to me, but I would like the assessment of a native English speaker.
Yes, it accepts "I am having lunch"--and that is the more idiomatically proper way to express it (better than "I am at lunch").
I am at lunch. - I am at lunch - tomorrow between 10:30 AM and 2:00 PM. I am at lunch - now. I may or not have food yet or may have already eaten.
I am on lunch. - I am on my lunch time slot, I may or not eat or may have already eaten. I may, deliberately or not, use my lunch time slot to pursue some activity, including or excluding lunch.
I am having lunch ... , now, in the near, distant or vague future. I am having lunch in 2 seconds, minutes, hours, days. I am having lunch, someday, belatedly, in my lifetime with the heroine, honoree, victims, refugees, celebrity, at some notable place
My version is that i have to translate "I am at lunch" in Italien I wrote: Sono al pranzo. (a+il =al) it is incorrect. Why? Please help, thanks
Out of curiosity, why is that? Is it just a language quirk? I don't really like the comparison to "you don't need it in English" because in English you need the definite in far fewer cases than in Italian.
I didnt mean it as a reason, just that you wouldnt need the article in either language. In English we would not say I am at the lunch, unless you were specifying a particular lunch, and its the same in this case in the italian
The fact i have a southern accent appears to baffle duolingo and frustrates me!!!
When I saw "to", I automatically assimed that it meant that, "I am going to lunch," instead of "I am at lunch."
Colazione is generally breakfast, and pranzo is generally lunch, except for a few high-class circumstances when those words are used in weird ways.
Treccani states (http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/pranzo) "Nell’uso ufficiale ed elevato si preferisce, peraltro, chiamare colazione, termine di tradizione letter[aria], il pasto del mezzogiorno, riservando pranzo al pasto della sera." That is to say, if you are invited to the embassy or to a noble house, or to some official event, you might hear "seconda colazione" for lunch and "pranzo" for dinner; breakfast is often called "prima colazione" to avoid confusion.
Mi sono piaciuta di sapere... Grazie! ( Se mi sbaglio, corrigerete - como dice (+/-) il Papa Giovanni Paolo II).
That would be "mi fa piacere saperlo" (I'm glad to know it) or more commonly "buono a sapersi" (good to know); I think the pope's quote was "Se sbaglio mi corrigerete" (if I'm wrong you'll "correct" me) but it's more or less it, yeah :)
Muito obrigada, Ferdinando! "Buono a sapersi" este tipo de frase. Às vezes, as frases do Duo parecem inúteis...
Same in England. Northern might be dinner (midday) and tea (evening) which in industrial pverty would not be much. Rich folks may have lunch, dinner and supper, lots of food
In English the subject should only be omitted in the imperative; in any other instance it's a grammar mistake.
Why not, "I lunch"? Cf, "I breakfast", "I dine"; or, to use a slightly archaic (Elizabethan) idiom, "I sup."
I believe there are verbs, pranzare and cenare which would do the job but a slightly different sentence than her