One of the suggested translation by Duolingo to that sentence says: "you all can walk or not"... I cannot understand why that would be possible. Why "all"? Besides it, I put "You are able to walk or not" and got it wrong. Why?
English doesn't have a proper second person plural, so saying you all/y'all can clarify that you're talking to multiple people.
As to the second, I don't know.
After looking at my translator app I see that casual German translates "können" as permission as well as ability. It would be less confusing to use the verb "dürfen," meaning "may" or "allowed" which has nothing to do with physical ability. The speaker in Duo's sentence is saying something like, "Go ahead, (all of) you (adult friends or children) have my permission to run if you want to." Without context and not having the feel for the language that a native speaker has, it is difficult to know exactly what the best translation is.
In English the 'all' isn't strictly necessary either, since it's usually understood from the context whether the entire group is included or not. And in the US, it often isn't stated for exactly that reason.
In the southern U.S., "y'all" is often used to provide the plural sense. I suppose in the northeast U.S., "youse" may be used similarly.
But in a more formal setting, I would use "You can all . . . ," or "All of you can . . . ."
I'm aware: I'm from the South originally. However, it still isn't necessary, and often isn't said outside of 'y'all.' So not including 'all' when translating this to English shouldn't cause the answer to be marked wrong, because we are excluding an unnecessary word.
I personally have used and witnessed many expressions with 'all' included. For instance, when teaching a class wherein a few students may be reprimanded but the teacher wants to reinforce the rules to everyone. 'You all need to remember this rule [not just the plural 'yous' to which I've been speaking]"
Northeastern US here, western Massachusetts. We don't say youse here, and it sounds completely unnatural and ridiculous to me. Like lazy slang, maybe with a hint of Mafia.
Boston's Eastern Mass, right?
Yous(e) as a plural is found mainly in (Northern) England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, northern Nova Scotia, parts of Ontario in Canada and parts of the northeastern United States (especially areas like Boston where there was historically Irish immigration) Wiktionary
Definition: (dialectal, chiefly Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, New York City, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Boston, New England, Northeastern United States, Chicago, Cincinnati, Liverpudlian, Cape Breton, Ireland, Scotland, Michigan) You (plural).
Yeah, that's eastern mass. I'm in western mass, about 2 hours away from it. I haven't heard the terminology here, not that I can recall anyway. I've spent a good amount of time in Central mass, about an hour away from Boston, and have friends there, but I don't recall ever hearing it there either. It literally sounds like Mafia slang, like something you'd hear on an old mobster movie. Though it may be valid, I don't use it and haven't heard it used. It would be too easy to confuse with "use", actually, since it sounds the same.
Actually, "you" is plural, so saying "you all/y'all" and such is doubling the plural. What English doesn't have (anymore) is 2nd-person singular, which is what "thou" was used for.
'you all' is (or at least was) southern dialect for the plural, and I use it for clarity on occasion.
Imagine a tour bus letting off a group of German tourists. The tour guide give the group an option to walk three blocks to the church or take the bus. In this context this sentence make sense. "Ihr könnt laufen oder nicht. " i.e. You all can walk or not.
Does the German sentence have the meaning "You can go or stay" ? Or is it as meaningless as the current correct English translation "you can run or not" is.
difficult question. because if you stay there will be trouble; if you go there will be double.
No, it doesn't IMV. It means: You can either walk or take the car/go by public transport etc. You can run or not isn't exactly meaningless if you want to imply: you can either run or walk slowly. It really depends on context. HTH
If you say: "Ihr könnt laufen oder ihr könnt nicht laufen." (You can walk or you cannot walk.), the verb will go the ending of the sentence. But this is just a rule of thumb. The sentence "Ihr könnt laufen oder (ihr könnt) nicht (laufen)" is elliptical and, therefore, there is no verb that could be put at the ending.
Yes, it is wrong. You are posing a question and the exercise is not. The exercise is making a statement that you have two options: walking or not walking. The person making the statement doesn't care which option is chosen.
Sort of. But I think you might want to say: You can run, nicht wahr? Again, context and/or tone of voice needed.
"Ihr könnt" is present tense, indicative mood, whereas "Ihr könnte" (as well as ich, er, sie) is present conditional. Also, we often say in English "could" when we mean "can" or "may." This German sentence is made more difficult to translate since we English speakers do not have a plural, familiar, second person. Try these in your favorite translator to see the differences. Hope this helps.
I responded "you can run or not", which was marked incorrect. Why in this sentence does laufen = walk, but doesn't = run?
"You can run or not" is one of the accepted alternatives for a translation exercise.
Perhaps you had a listening exercise instead? Or you made some other mistake?
It's hard to tell because we can't see exactly what you did. A link to an uploaded screenshot may be helpful.
"Ihr" is second person familiar plural. "Du" is second person familiar singular.
ihr can't be "she" (as the subject of a verb).
It can be "her", as the indirect object, e.g. Ich gebe ihr ein Buch "I give her a book".
So you have to check whether ihr is the subject (= you, plural informal), the indirect object (= [to] her), or a possessive determiner in front of a noun (= her, their, your, e.g. ihr Buch "her book, their book" or Ihr Buch "your book").
Why is laufen 'walk' in this case. Doesn't laufen mean run and gehen mean go/walk?
Hmm, I didn't know Duo marked "walk" incorrect. If you look in your favorite translator, you will see that "laufen" means "walk," "run," and "go." "Rennen" strictly means "run" or something fast anyway. In any case there is no way to tell from "Ihr könnt laufen" whether it means "run," "walk," or "go." Notice that by using the verb "können" (in second person plural) the speaker is saying that the listeners have the ABILITY to run/walk/go." English speakers (myself included) also have the bad habit of saying "can" when we mean "may." If you think Duo is complaining about "walk," you should report it as a Problem/my answer should be accepted.
Be careful to make sure nobody is standing near you when you click on the pronunciation for "könnt."
No. The proper conjugation for "können" (can, able, allowed) for the second person, plural ("ihr") is "könnt".
This seems to me somewhat unfinished. It goes like "Y'all may go... or maybe not [or stay]" [no matter what you choose, something will happen but that part of sentence is missing].
Can't do better than that, but an answering "You could go or not" did it
I think "Can you walk or not" should be correct, because it means the same thing and is more proper grammar imo
You would need to swap the first two words around in order for it to be a question.
I like this better: 'don't' better than 'not' for a literal translation. It's just that both 'don't' and 'not' informally expect context and formally expect a verb, which could grammatically be 'walk' but an uncontexted reader is waiting for more... even if 'walk' is used. Why are you telling me I can walk if you don't know if I can? or "Don't you want me to come/go?"
The English translation is wrong here in my opinion. Shouldn't it be "can you walk or not" ?
Is the German offering permission, making a suggestion, or checking, in the second half, the veracity of the first half. This English is unusual: 'not' is not usually an alternative to walking: biking or driving of flying a balloon, but 'not' by itself doesn't work well: suggesting that they not go at all.
It's interesting to think about the subtleties of English. You can run or not" implying your will. "You can or can't run." suggesting something more compulsory.
Forgive my less meta-cognitive grasp of German here. Is "konnt" (umlaut) conditional/modal or is it the third plural? "How would German say, "You could walk... or not."?
I did this with haste, but for some reason the translation said You can't walk or can't" something around those lines. Introducing double negation with the or. Is that right?
Shouldn't it be «can you walk or not» ? Because i understand this is a question