Translation:Obviously he was not using soap every day.
Native English speaker here.... I think 'obviously' going after "He was" should be accepted.
You're right. Often with Duolingo though I try to not change the word order too much unless necessary for the sentence to make sense.
one of the translations given is 'used to use', when I used that it was marked wrong, I don't understand why.
As awkward as it sounds, the correct form of that usage would be "obviously he did not use to use soap every day" i.e. it is USE not USED. The presence of "did" indicates the past and the infinitive form "use" has to be used rather than the past participle "used".
yeah, roman2095 has a point, when 'did' is used to construct a past tense together with another verb, that verb is always used in his present form. I.e.: I did use the soap today. or for the interrogative form: Did you see that shadow? Did she catch her bus this morning? and so on :) hope I've expressed myself well
Technically, it is not the present tense but the infinitive that is used after 'did'
'He was obviously not using soap every day' was marked incorrect!!!! How dare DL correct this perfectly acceptable translation- 'obviously' is an adverb- it follows a verb- it's very poor style to begin a sentence with an adverb! I totally agree with you, Kotza. We're here to learn how to use Italian, not how to use English INCORRECTLY!
I wrote "Obviously he wouldn't use the soap every day" and was marked wrong. I am not a native English speaker, so could anyone tell me if this answer should have been accepted?
Using "would" in the non-conditional sense in the past does indeed mean that something used to be done habitually. Unfortunately when you introduce the negative form of that usage you introduce the possibility of yet another meaning which is that of refusal. So even though your translation could be considered correct it can also mean that he would refuse to use soap every day rather than just fail to use it. The actual meaning would depend on the context. Nevertheless there is some possibility of ambiguity, and for that reason you will probably see this usage of "would" less often in the negative than the positive form. It is usually easier and clearer to just use a non-ambiguous alternative such as "did not" "did not use to" when negating a habitual action in the past.
Your translation is a little unusual but it is possible. For example, "When I lived with him, he would buy lots of soap, but he wouldn't use the soap every day."
I think obviously is used more as a personal assessment where as evidently would be used when there is evidence and is known without a doubt. That's my thinking anyway. ;) I am open to finding out what others think. :)
I put he before obviously instead of after. Duolingo was not pleased.
Any rules on when to drop the definite article when translating from Italian (e.g. il sapone -> soap; not "the soap")?
In English we tend not to use it very much unless referring to one specific thing (e.g. bar of soap). So, soap in general would just be "soap" (no "the") whereas the particular lemon-scented soap in the dish would be "the soap". When translating from Italian, sometimes it's clear that the meaning is either "soap in general" or "that particular bar of soap" and sometimes it's not clear and you have to guess. In a real-life situation you could ask the speaker to clarify. Hope this helps! :)
This is one of my favorite sentences in Duo. I really love indirect humor.
Actually, no, because "everyday" is the adjectival form. Obviously he was not using soap every day – soaping was not an everyday thing for him.
With duolingo it's generally better to translate it as written rather than to paraphrase.
A lot of people do not seem to get that. But then I didn't at first and also didn't know what the little flags with numbers were until I touched it by accident one day somewhere during level 11 and now can't stop reading them. It's made my study time much longer lol.
I am a comment reading fiend, I tells ya! I spend more time reading the comments and opinions on an article than I do reading the article. ^_^ Sometimes the comments and reactions are better than the original text.
It's just the way the link to the comments looks on the mobile app, I believe. Don't worry, you aren't missing out, the full site is much better.
"Obviously he'd not use soap every day" is shown as a correct answer but is 'conditional' not imperfect i.e. different to 'Obviously he was not using soap every day'
'He obviously was not using soap every day' means the same as the latter yet is marked incorrect.
Sorry I know it is a very subtle distinction but that is how English is. the main point though is 'Obviously' can be placed before or after 'he' in this answer and NOT marked as incorrect whilst the 1st correct answer in DL is WRONG.
In this case, the "would" that is contracted into 'd isn't conditional, but is used to express habitual action in the past. There's a blurb towards the bottom of the page at this site: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/would
'd can mean "would" and can mean "had", so "he'd" is ambiguous, and "he had not use" is not valid English ("he had not used") and is not a valid translation of the imperfect, because "had" would be avevo.
Duo also disallowed "He was obviously not using the soap every day", despite this being more grammatically correct and avoiding a contraction. Once again Duo seems intent on teaching us English rather than Italian. DisappointoLingo would be more apt.