30 Comments This discussion is locked.
I put "I am going to take you to the airport", which is correct, but was marked wrong. Reported...
Not in UK English, at any rate. You take sb/sth to another place - "I'll pick you up and take you to the airport."
You bring sb/sth from another place to where you are at the time of speaking - "I'll collect you at the airport and bring you back here".
You can also bring sb/sth from where you are to where the other person is (seeing it from their perspective) - "I'm coming to see you now, and I'll bring the tickets with me."
Bring is strongly connected with come, and take with go.
But apparently in the States linguists have begun to notice relatively recently that some people (and institutions) have started using bring instead of take (or perhaps it's vice versa), so it may be OK in American English, I don't know.
Some Americans use bring instead of take, but it is certainly not correct, nor standard English here. I have noticed that it is most often used in the upper tier of states. I wince each time I hear it used.
I'm not sure I fully understand why "vou" is allowed to be future tense here? In my mind this should be "I take you to the airport". If it was "I will take you to the airport" shouldn't that be "Eu irei te levar para o aeroporto" ?
One out of the other future tenses structures involves the use of ir (present tense) + verb ex: vou cozinhar esta tarde = i will cook this afternoon. Using "ir" in the future isnt wrong, but not often used..., more frequently used for a distant future: "irei me casar daqui vinte anos" = "i will get married twenty years from now)
I think they seem like this
“I'm going to take you to the airport“ and “i will be going to take you to the airport“
Why didn't it accept my answer of "I'm taking you to the airport. "? The answer it wanted was "I will DRIVE you to the airport". I think that's wrong!
No I didn't. Maybe that was part of my problem. I will try that again later. Thank you.
We use different grammar to talk about the future in English. If you use the present continuous to talk about the future with the verb ´to take´ you need to include a time marker (such as ´tomorrow´). Alternatively use the going to future without a time marker. So, I´m going to take you to the airport should be fine, but I´m taking you to the airport shouldn´t be. In BP they use the present indicative of ´to go´to talk about the future.
Actually, not necessarily. If within a conversation, for example, there is a disagreement about an action that both parties know the time for, you can. I.e. a person is leaving and says "mom said she could take me to the airport instead." -"No, I (emphasis) am taking you/going to take you to the airport. No one else. End of discussion." Someone who just got accepted into a university says "I'm going to University, yay!" and not "I will go" or "I will be going" to mark the present moment of getting the news... I'm not entirely sure why you think present tense can't use -ing verb form in general - it totally does.
I thought 'I will take' is eu leverei and I am going to take you ' eu vou levar'
"Eu levarei" and "eu vou levar" are the same thing. "Vou" + verb is more common in Brazil. "futuro do indicativo" is more common in Potugal.
How do you know when "para" is being used as "for" and when its being as "to"?
Why is it not 'Eu vou levar te'? (Subject, verb, object) Is this a difference between Brazilian Portuguese and European Portuguese?
You bring things to the place where you are ('here') and take things somewhere else ('there'). So, in this case it is correct to use 'take' but not 'bring'.
Depends. If you are talking to someone about going to the party you would say, I will take beer with me when I go. But if you are talking to someone who is at the party you would say, I will bring beer with me when I come.
Eu tinha lido que todos verbos juntos tinha que ter um "to" no meio deles, porque "will take" não é "will to take"?
Isso não é uma regra. Há alguns verbos que não usam esse "to", tais como: should, may, might, will, would, could, shall, can e must.
Há algumas outras ocasiões em que o "to" não é necessário.
tem alguma semelhança entre esses que não usam o "to" ou eu tenho que lembrar cada um deles?