"There is no milk left."
Translation:No queda leche.
I'm not sure how long ago I posted both of those comments, but they were many, many months apart.
They can do both, it's up to the person using them to decide. I find it actually increases my (personal) learning speed, if I can peek, feeling less punished and being 'rewarded' for the right thing I wrote. This does not always work, but the general trend for me is, I remember the right one better if I peek and then get a 'pling' (connecting it to 'good') for 'right' than if I go blind and get the 'plong' for 'wrong'.
If you wanted to tell someone that, "There is no milk." Then, "No hay leche." would be sufficient. But for this sentence we need to say, "There is no milk left."
As you know, the English word left as several meanings, the direction left, left hand, the passed tense of leave, and in this case remaining. So before you just go grab any Spanish word that could be translated into "left" you need to understand what the sentence is really trying to say.
"There is no milk left." = "There is no milk remaining." = "No milk remains."
Now that you know what we are really trying to say, now that you understand the sense of the English phrase, you choose the Spanish words that convey that sense, not simply any word that can translate into "left." In this case the only choice is Quedar which has the meaning or sense of "to stay / to remain" among other meanings.
Thanks for a lovely explanation, Eghost 57, especially "now that you understand the sense of the English phrase, you choose the Spanish words that convey that sense" ....I feel like there can be a certain linguistic arrogance in English speakers who assume that everything should be literally translatable from/into English and get annoyed if it is not.
When I see that it's not literally translatable, I'm like "Darn, more words and grammar to remember"... English has spoiled us with Homonyms and Homographs... And I think Spanish speakers are spoiled with the verb conjugations...Trabajas vs. You work...sounds easier to me. LoL
Isn't partido about leaving/departing. Where quedar is to stay or remain. So its there's no milk remaining. Although I thought no hay made sense to start the sentence. I had 'no hay queda leche.' Which was wrong. Can anyone say why no hay doesn't precede queda here
I think because "no hay leche" means "there is no milk" and "no queda leche" means "no milk remains," so if you put them together you'd have something like " there is no milk remains," or "there is no milk is left," giving you two active verbs doing the job of one. I don't remember all the correct terminology regarding active/passive verbs, gerunds, participles, etc. but it does come out differently than saying in English, "There is no milk left" or "there is no milk remaining," which I'm guessing was your intention.
So the Spanish "no queda leche" translates to the English "no milk remains" or "no milk is left," which has the same meaning as when we say in English "there is no milk left."
hope this helps
I'm sorry, When I wrote that, I had not much time. Moreover, now I think I used a wrong word . As anyone can see in my profile, I'm not a native English speaker...
I thought "meaningless" as lacking of meaning, as to the language, and I didn't mean to be disrespectful or offensive, so is this word?
The sentence "no hay leche partido" doesn't make sense because:
1. "leche" is feminine, then it'd have to be "leche partida".
2. "leche partida" doesn't have a meaning in Spanish. At most, it sounds a little similar to "leche cortada" (spoiled milk, buttermilk) but has no proper meaning anyway. So it would be like saying "there is no partitioned/split/broken milk", or similar to "milk split" like "banana split" ?
If the Duolingo's hint says "partido" for "left", maybe it corresponds to the past participle of "partir" (to leave) with sense of "depart".
"To be left" altogether is a phrasal verb, so untranslatable word by word separately.
I hope it helps. Took a long time to elaborate...
It might help if you think of the Duolingo suggestions as possible translations of that word rather than hints to help you get the question right. The past participle of partir is not incorrect as a possible translation of "left", it simply does not work in this context. Language is complex, Duolingo is an automated program, and it is free. I am deeply grateful to the people who have created and maintain it. What an awesome job!
I think it's because milk is the object rather than the subject. (Spanish seems to have conceptually based roles, rather than positional, as done in English.)
So in Spanish, you omit the subject if there isn't one, whereas in English, we'd need to add something silly, as in "it is raining", despite there being no "it".
(I'm not a native speaker, I'm not sure how accurate my theory is. But Spanish does something similar with indirect object pronouns, ie, treats them as indirect objects based on semantics, even if the direct object is missing. In English, direct/indirect objects are positional, not conceptual.)
I thought leche was the subject of queda. Often it becomes quedan to agree with plural subjects. I'm not sure, but on Spanishdict.com their intransitive example seems to fit
"¿queda azúcar?is there any sugar left?"
If this example is intransitive, then there is no direct object.
That site also has as its first example, quedar as a transitive:
- (to remain) a. to be left ¿Quedan asientos para nosotros?Are there any seats left for us?
I'm not certain how seats can be the object, while sugar is the subject of a very similar sentence.
However, these sentences do appear to have a zero-subject in the subject place, although they do agree in number with the noun in the object place. (Colour me confused.)
Well, you are more experienced, and it's still kinda a blur to me. Just on THAT basis I would think you're correct.. But even more so, I agree that the conjugation points out to this being a subject, as you stated earlier.
You can use it to state where something is located.
- El banco queda en la esquina. - The bank is on the corner.
You can use it reflexively to say where you are staying or to give commands.
- Nos quedamos en un hotel. - We stayed in a hotel.
- Quédate. - Stay. (I say this to my dog everyday. He taught me Spanish.)
And it's used in a bunch of expressions and other meanings I'm not yet familiar with. http://www.wordreference.com/es/en/translation.asp?spen=quedar
It's technically correct but it's unnecessarily wordy, which is probably why it's not in their correct answer list. In a real world scenario you'd just say either:
- No hay leche. = "There is no milk."
- No queda leche. = "No milk remains." = "There is no milk left."
Both get your point across, only the second directly translates into the English sentence in question.
OK, it seems everything I try is wrong these days; maybe it's because Duo is trying to advance me rapidly from stilted, limited beginner's Spanish to more conversational, idiomatic sentences. However, when "hay" is GIVEN for "there is," what's wrong with saying "Hay es no leche," or "Hay esta no leche," (since it seems that being out of milk is conditional upon present circumstances & not a state of being)?