1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Italian
  4. >
  5. "Vado a prendere la macchina."

"Vado a prendere la macchina."

Translation:I am going to get the car.

October 16, 2014



Just so no one is mistaken like I was a while back, this literally means that you're GOING SOMEWHERE to get a car, NOT "I am going to" as in the future tense in English. I've asked a few native speakers that I know and they all said that Italian does NOT use "andare a" to indicate a future tense, but rather that you are physically going somewhere to do something.

Vado a prendere la macchina = I am going (somewhere) to get the car

Prenderò la macchina = I will get the car / I am going to get the car


If that's the case, shouldn't "I go to get the car" be accepted, since it implies I physically go (now) to get the car - not I am going (in the future) to get the car?


Yes, and it was accepted. That's the answer I put and it marked it correct.


Hmmmm, wasn't when I did it a few days ago. But maybe they've updated!


Just given that answer and it was rejected 2.5 20


It's a correct translation. Please report it.


I go to get the car was accepted 12/2020.


"I go take the car" is not correct english.


But "I go get the car" is (at least in US) and it has the same meaning of the Italian sentence (= I go to get the car).


I wrote"I go and get the car" which was deemed wrong..well I added the "and" ...I thought It would sound better that way, so I had it coming, I guess..


There is no such thing as incorrect english


Rubbish! Maybe that is why it has become such an ugly bastardised language where laziness rules ok. I was taught not to use GET in most cases because it is tautology. I have got. Why use got? You already have the verb "to have". I exercise my brain daily by finding the good old correct word. It is what made Austen or Dickens so beautiful to read. It must be awfully difficult for language students, unless they are actually learning American.


Can we use ''vado a prendere'' for sentences like ''vado a prendere un succo d'arancia'' or is it more common to use the future here ?


Use either the future tense (prenderò un succo d'arancia), or the formula "stare per + infinitive" (sto per prendere un succo d'arancia). The former is more like "will" and the latter is more like "going to".

This sentence (Vado a prendere la macchina --> I am going to get the car) is a very unfortunate one, as here "andare a" literally means go to as moving myself to the location of the car.


Thanks, very helpful !


Get the car means the same as fetch the car


I agree. In this context get and fetch are interchangeable in English.

The Oxford dictionary translates "fetch" as "andare/venire a prendere", so maybe Duo is rejecting it because the "go to" is superfluous? This seems too clever for Duo. Reported.


"Sto andando a prendere la macchina."???


If the context is I am in the middle of going, right now, on my way to get the car, then that's absolutely the right choice; even vado ... is worse. In other contexts it would just show you didn't understand the gerund. Great learning example, thanks.


Vado a prendere la macchina perché ieri l'ho lasciata al bar quando mi sono ubriaca troppo per guidarla a casa!


Close! ". . . ieri l'ho lasciata al bar quando ero troppo ubriaca . . . " "Ieri" makes it past tense so would need "ero" (I was) instead of "sono" (I am).
And "troppo ubriaca" => "too drunk", not "ubriaca troppo".


Why is "a" used and not "da"? I thought "da" was used when you are doing something.


Prepositions are mystifying, but this case is clear: andare is a verb of motion. Followed by a + infinitivo, the speaker is going somewhere to do something, not merely about to do it as in English.

Da would be used before a person (or their role), e.g. vado dal meccanico a prendere la macchina.


The solution i was given was "i go take the car". This is not correct English!


Why not use 'andare'?


Duo used it. Vado is the first person singular of andare.


What does this 'a' mean?


"andare a" = "to go to"


Thank you! have a lingot


Italian continues to confound me. It is my understanding that "vado" means "I go". If so, why isn't it "sto andando a"?


That depends on which Duo topic you were studying. You'd be right if it were the gerund, or the context is a continuous action. Elsewhere the future tense of prendere might be right, without "vado". However the Italian present tense is used, especially in conversation, for the English "I am going to ..." in an immediate sense.


Why isn't this "I am going to take the car"? Doesn't prendere mean take? To take the car and to get the car are 2 different meanings.


Andare a means "to go to", but NOT in the English sense of an immediate future action, which I guess is what you are thinking. It signifies a move. Do you now see why andare a prendere means "to go to get/fetch" and why "... take" is wrong? Your version would normally be prendo la macchina, because immediate futures are said in the present tense.


I understand the concept but likely it will take me awhile to understand the difference from English. Thanks for leading me down the path.


I wrote that and it was accepted as correct. This thread says otherwise. confusing at best.


They must have changed it. Wrongly IMO, because andare a prendere has the special meaning of fetch or get. Now they've just lost that teaching.


I wrote "I go to get the car" and it was not accepted.


“I am going to” is present continuous tense and it is used to denote an on-going action or one that will happen in the near future. The "experts" indicate that the sentence “I go to” is simple present and it is used to denote habitual actions. Sounds like a slight difference but one where Duo might make a distinction.


In Italian, "i am going* only means that right now I am on my way. Unlike English, it cannot be used for the the future at all. If you mean "I am going to get the car in a moment", then you must use "I will" (Andrò).


Actually Tim, for the immediate future (usually implied in the English "I am going to", with or without "in a moment") an Italian would very probably use the present tense, vado, not the future. as Duo does here. Your comment applies to the Italian present continuous sto andando.

Only English is confusing, with its several meanings of "going to". Italian is more logical.


what is wrong with: I will go get the car


The Italian sentence refers to the present, not the future.


See the comment above by malcolmissimo. "For the (English) immediate future an Italian would very probably use the present tense vado, not the future". Maybe that hasn't been taught yet in this course but later you will see that the English future tense is often translated to the Italian present tense. "I will go get the car" is the most natural meaning for this sentence. It should be accepted by DL.


Tried using - "I am going to bring the car" - not accepted.


It's a wrong translation. The Italian sentence does not imply at all that the subject will bring the car to the listener. It only says the person will get the car. For instance, the person may get the car and then take it to a mechanic's shop.


I thought "prendere" meant "to take". So I wrote "I am going to take the car". It was counted correct October 2020


Anyone know why "I go to get the car" isn't accepted?


car or automobile should both be accepted. picky, picky picky


shouldn't "buy" be accepted?


Why do you think it should?


well to go get something could be interpreted as buying it, i.e. getting some food usually means going to buy it. Also google translate lists it as one of the possible translations for "prendere"... and I just checked, wiktionary as well... :D so i'm pretty sure it should be accepted


Google Translate uses statistical matching of texts, not language rules or a dictionary. Never trust it. It has 14 results for prendere. Should they all be accepted too? The 12th most common is "buy". Personally, I prefer "I'm going to capture the car", which is 7th :-)

Prendere = "buy" doesn't appear in the WordReference dictionary, but it does in Repubblica, in the context of "I'll take this one". I don't think you'd use it after a verb of motion like andare.


Can "prendere la macchina" not mean "to start the car"?


Why would you think that?

Avviare is to start a car, i.e. to set it on its way (via), also non-vehicles such as a business.

Accendere is to start up something, meaning to switch it on.


I think it's Spanish interference. Thank you, malcomissimo!


Thank you malcomissimo for your focus on the issues around translations based on actual vocabulary rather than someone's experience and preferences. "Get" has become more slang in its broad everyday use and there are more precise words to convey the intended meanings. We have words which can give a better explanation of how we "get" something, e.g. receive, steal, found, obtain, buy, etc. 

In this case I would use the meaning of prendere (get) rather than 'buy'.

I also want to encourage students to use the vocabulary as written with its more precise meanings: Italian has a word for buy (comprare) to use if that was the desired meaning.


I go take the car === it's wrong


"Automobile" should be accepted.


Strange translation


"I'll go get the car" should be accepted.


On spot decisions are translated with will not going to

  • 1691

Poor Appolonia Corleone...


fetch... no one says fetch unless a dog is involved


In your dialect of English. Not everyone speaks that.

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