"The ducks are wounded."
Translation:Los patos están heridos.
'estan heridos' describes the state of the ducks, ie the ducks were in a wounded condition. 'fueron heridos' is the PASSIVE construction describing the event that caused the wounding, it's another way of saying 'someone wounded the soldiers' (Perhaps wounded ducks getting their own back!!!)
Ricrog's not saying that - you can use patos or hombres in both if you like. The difference is between describing their current state (they are wounded, están heridos) and a past event described in the passive voice (they were wounded by someone or something, fueron heridos)
So they're saying two different things, they're different constructions - it's not about ducks vs dudes
I don't really get what you mean. Están heridos means they are wounded (current state), estuvieron herdios means they were wounded (past state), and fueron heridos means they were wounded (past event).
Those are different meanings and any of them could come up (including in Duolingo's sentences). There's an ambiguity there in English that Spanish avoids with the two 'be' verbs, and 'were wounded' should be accepted as either possibility in Spanish unless there's some more context.
But why would some sentence about ducks have to say the same thing as another sentence about hombres? They're different sentences with different meanings, one just happens to use noun X and the other noun Y
To expand on what kenaxo said, In the present tense ser always means a quality that something has. But in the preterite (the past tense covered so far; Spanish has two!) for some reason it can be used for things that happened once. Actually, that's just like how it functions in English -- the men are wounded means it's a condition they're in, whereas to say the men were wounded in a particular incident is to speak of a particular moment.
This is not quite true, how about: "After the battle, half the soldiers were dead and the rest were wounded(estaban heridos)" - past tense describing condition not particular moment. And: "Soldiers are wounded(son heridos) in battles sometimes" - present tense describing particular moment not condition, this is the 'passive' construction. :)
Isn't ser vs estar here just a sense or context thing rather than an error? "Los patos están heridos" would mean the ducks are hurt / injured now - i.e. it's a description of their state, whereas it would be OK to say "los patos son heridos" if the surrounding context were a passive sentence - so something like "The ducks are [habitually] injured" maybe like "the ducks are hurt in the process of making food" It's not absolutely clear from a single sentence which is meant.
La pata is a female duck, see http://lema.rae.es/drae/srv/search?val=pata
3. f. Hembra del pato (‖ ave palmípeda). (hembra means female animal)
So yeah it should be fine, report it! And 'drake' just means 'male duck' which is already wrapped up in the pato/pata thing - you could say pato macho or pata hembra if you need to make it clear
Haha yeah, I just wanted to give you the info from the source! That's the dictionary for the Real Academia Española, they're like the official language authority - so you can't get much more definitive than that