"Je dois y aller, mes collègues m'attendent."

Translation:I have to go; my colleagues are waiting for me.

July 1, 2020

This discussion is locked.


Doesn't the y make it I have to go THERE? (Not accepted)

  • 1819

I fell into the same trap. But then I recalled that in much earlier exercises I think we learned that if the place you are going to is not specified, then "y" must be used. It seems that in a French sentence you can't just "go", you have to go somewhere! So I guess when translating to English, we have to figure out from the context whether "there" is necessary or not.


"y" and "en" are similar when it comes to translation from French to English. "J'en ai un." trans: I have one (of them — which is understood, but necessary to say in French but not in English). "Y" reflects a place or a thought depending on it's use and similar to "en" is necessary in French, but is not translated to English.


"i must go there my colleagues are waiting for me". There must be SOME way to say that. Reported 28 July 2020.


I think y aller is a fixed expression that means "go, leave, get going, etc."



I also got dinged on "I have to go there." It seems to me this should be accepted as well.


How does one say "I must go there; my colleagues are waiting for me." ??


So I understand that aller must have a destination (Y when one is not specified) but doesn't this also mean I have to go there? "The train to Paris has been cancelled." "But I have to go there, my colleagues ..." Is that phrased differently?


We must translate y as THERE! Duo's refusal to do so makes no sense at all even if y aller sometimes just means to go.


I think you're right! Not that I claimed to be. Thanks for the link.


I have to go there; my colleagues are waiting for me. This is correct. Why put the "y" in the sentence if it should not be translated? This sentence could have left out the "y" and it would translate the way that Duolingo shows.


I get that omitting the there in English should be allowed. It's not necessarily required in English. But so should including it be allowed. It's certainly valid English to include there.


Is this the same idea as allez-y? lets go


"I have to go, my colleagues are waiting" should be accepted - reported


I don't think you can omit "for me".


Of course you can, it is clear they are waiting for me, that's why I have to go...


Then they would have omitted m' in the French sentence as well!


You can't omit m' in the French sentence, it is required.

This is the point - it is required by French grammar to have a reflexive pronoun, but not by English grammar.


It is not a reflexive pronoun. It's the object pronoun meaning ME. If the French had said mes collègues attendent, that would mean my colleagues are waiting.

Learn French in just 5 minutes a day. For free.