"Tienes que esperar aquí."
Translation:You have to wait here.
sometimes duolingo accepts 'must' for 'tener que' and sometimes it doesn't. Tenemos que informar los oficiales!
Ron Seymour. I am sorry but I fail to grasp the point that you are making.
Because you think they mean the same thing? If, as is explained above, there is a difference in degree of urgency between 'tienes que" and "debes" then that difference needs to be learned.
Even in English there is a difference of urgency between "You must stay here" and "You have to stay here", so why is this causing a problem?
No there is not a difference of urgency between You must stay here and You have to stay here in English, and in the past tense 'had to' is used for both.
Yeah some people argue there is a difference but to me if you have to do something then you must and if you must do something then you have to. So they seem equal to me. I say just keep reporting it.
I agree with you totally. I'm more concerned with AaronTovo's question about why Duo sometimes only accepts "must" in place of "tener que" some of the time. It's not really correct, because of what you've said, but sometimes the app insists that we translate it that way, but other times says it's wrong.
You don't give an example, so I am guessing at why, but I expect that this may be happening on a set phrase that is more commonly "must" in English rather than "have to". In short, this is a concession to reality.
As a matter of learning it serves duo best to hold a strict and consistent line where they can on translations. Problem is, languages are not rules-based in the sense that a tener que in one context will always mean the same level of intensity of obligation in another. Also, usages differ across location and language. An idiomatic combination using deber can carry just as much obligation as a "have to", and vice versa.
To be useful as a learning tool duo has to walk that fine line between giving a definitional sense of a word or phrase, while giving leeway to how the language is actually used. A too strict literalism is where Spanglish comes from.
Still, that is a bit nuanced for a beginner to attempt to negotiate. The upshot remains for anyone who is just learning the meanings of words and general grammar rules through these lessons, it does you no harm to stick with a literal definition where you can until you get a better sense of Spanish and how it is used. At some point all this clicks together and these inconsistencies don't matter anymore.
jindr, I like what you said and the way you put it a lot.
As an experiment, I tried using, "You need to wait here" as in this case, "have to," and "need to," seemed equivalent to me. And that interpretation was accepted as being valid.
A problem many students have,here, is that they like to think Duolingo is teaching translation, per se, whereas the provided English words, phrases, and sentences only serve to enable us to understand what the Spanish words, phrases, and sentences mean. Thus, the closer our English interpretations are to a literal translation the better.
While I am still learning Spanish, I know in French there is an imperative tense for verbs. Perhaps this is the case here as well.
ericksda- I don't see any imperative here. Imperative would be : espera aquí, in French : attends ici, in English, wait here.
The verb "tener" means "to have" something in the sense of possession. "Tengo un gato" = "I have a cat." When you add the "que" to a "tener" verb, the meaning becomes "to have [to do something]."
"Tengo el libro." = "I have the book."
"Tengo que estudiar todo el libro." = "I have to study the whole book."
Tienes que = "You have to (do something)"
Tengo que = "I have to (do something)"
I assume that in this sentence esperar could easily mean 'wait' or 'hope'?
It's really hard to hear the 'que' on the web version of this (unless you choose the slow version)
Alphonse, I respect your comments and patience, but would like to play "devil's advocate" on this point. I admit I am no linguist, but wonder why "must" would need any further conjugation than 1st person if it is merely an "internalized" directive.
Also, a sample scenario re: consequences: Lifeguard: "The rules say you HAVE TO stay on this side of the safety rope (or I will make you leave the beach)." You, talking to self, from way past the safety rope: "I MUST swim faster than Michael Phelps, or that shark is going to eat me." ;-)
You guys are surely well educated and loooong winded.can we get the shorter version of these debates. Por favor!