Technically, could this also translate as "I am not your fish"? Dumb, I know; but without a loro or an io it is not really descriptive.
Forget it. That was the first thing that popped into my head, but Duolingo wasn't having any of that. ;-)
"I am not your fishes" I think would be a possible (though surreal) translation...
Fish is the plural of fish, so "I am not your fishes" is not a possible translation, ever. On the other hand "I am not your fish" should be accepted. This is a really important lesson considering that we learned that her bear is hungry earlier.
Well, there is a rather archaic use of "fishes" as the plural (consider, for example, biblical references to "loaves and fishes"). "Fishes" can also be used to refer to different species of fish. (See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fishes )
It's not often used in conversation today to refer simply to several fish. Still, if the sentence is "I am not your fish(es)" why not also be surreal and archaic?
As I often do, I forgot about fishes being used for multiple kinds of fish. That kind of thing always felt wrong to be. I shudder when someone says peoples. That being said, it's still impossible for one person to be multiple kinds of fish.
On the front of being surreal, I would love to have an entire category of all these weird surreal sentences, but one that can only be reached late in the game.
It's impossible for one person to be even one kind of fish, but once the possibility has been introduced, there is no going back. ;-)
Soglio: : D it's also surreally possible that one of the fish was doing the talking. ; ).
It does not necessarily need to mean that "one person is someone else's fish". "I am not your fish(es)" could also easily be an idiom and mean "I am not for you to catch" or something of that kind. So I don't see why this shouldn't be accepted as a valid translation.
Pesce is singular, so it should be Non sono il tuo pesce to make it I am not your fish.
I was thinking that language influence probably goes both ways. Italy is the bordering country next to several Slavic countries in the East; it is obvious how much Italian language influenced western Slovenian dialects, but who knows, maybe Slavic languages like Slovene and Croatian influenced Italian as well, at least a little. I know for sure that Slavic languages heavily influenced Romanian language, as Romania is an island of Romantics among all Slavs, with exception of Hungarians.
And in Polish, actually. It's "twój" here. :)
I put "They are not your fish." Duo said its wrong. Then I put "they are not your fishes." Duo says correct and another answer is "They are not your fish."
Because of the "Non" in front of the verb (sono) makes it so. For example "Mangio la torta" is "I eat the cake", but "Non mangio la torta" is "I don't eat the cake." Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes, and "don't" is a contraction of "do not". The example was about the negative.
This is Italian, not Spanish. non = not, no = no
Italian "No, non sono..." , English "No, they are not...", Spanish "No, no son..."
is there a way to tell whether the fish do not belong to one person or to several persons?
Hi yeah i am not your fish should be accepted because there are some strange ass sentences on here and theres no way of knowing what it is
I thought with 'Non sono' it could have meant I don't eg Io non sono i tuoi pesci. Where am I going wrong?
'Non sono' can be either 'They are not' or 'I am not'. If the object is 'your fish' (i.e. plural), it is more likely to be the plural 'they' than 'I'.
I wrote, "They are not your fishes," and it didn't accept it. It's currently only accepting, "They are not your fish," which is too restrictive, yes? Seems like "fishes" is perfectly acceptable in this case.
"(Essi) non sono il tuo pesce" is the translation but it's wrong. Plural with singular ? Very wrong !
What a crock. You tell us we can leave out the pronoun unless it is needed for clarity, then you leave it out just to ensure confusion or seeing if we guess correctly.