Translation:They will obtain control of the country.
The sentence: "Ellos van a obtener control..." has a mistake (yes in spanish), we say "obtener el control" not just "obtener control", it just does not sound natural to say it like it is now. It still translates as "gain control" or "take control" as vandermonde commented before.
nottu, thank you. While I really enjoy DL's puzzles, they play fast and loose with the presence or absence of articles. Losing hearts because of poor computer programming is not a big deal to me; understanding when articles are and are NOT required just confuses me at times and seems random.
You are wrong. I am a native speaker and "conseguir/tomar" always needs "el" before "control". If not it is bad Spanish.
There are many times, particularly in Hispanic America, where the U.S. influence is stronger, when articles are incorrectly stripped from Spanish phrases because of the influence of English. And I find Doulingo falls for that from time to time. This is one example.
Also of note is that the Spanish expression here seems like a literal translation from English. If it were a really native phase, it would be "(Ellos) van a tomar el control del país".
Siorghlas I am interested in learning the Spanish of Spain, but Duolingo is quite clear that it is teaching the Spanish of Hispanic America. E.g. I know not to use ordenador for computadora and of course there are no lessons on verbs conjugated with vosotros. I wouldn’t say Duo is falling for that, they are going out of their way to teach it.
"Ganar" is to win. Win implies a struggle or contest either by force or a political contest. Obtain suggests a more passive approach as in, "They will obtain control of the country when the other party fails to file the proper papers." It is not so much that you were entirely wrong, but just a case of you not selecting the best available option.
To answer your question, I would guess that translating obtener as "to win" wouldn't make sense in many contexts where "to obtain" would. Since this is one where "to win" does make sense, and would sound more natural in English, I chose it. That's the logic I generally go through. We're not given much information on which to base our answers.
Since "to win" is listed as a translation of "obtener", in what context is it actually a good one?
Are you sure it makes as much of a difference in Spanish as it does in English (where "going to" implies a future that lies further ahead than the future tense)? Just asking. Take for instance how the present continuous and present tense in English both translate well into the "presente" in Spanish.
Yes, I'd say it makes a difference which version we use in both languages. And it seems in other places in duolingo that they are very particular about selection of the correct future tense. With some sentences and phrases we have to translate based on our perception of the author's intention because a direct translation would come across as jibberish. But with these two future forms, there is excellent transfer of meaning between Spanish and English, so I see this as a matter of proper translation.
Also, (for reference) I would not say that "going to" future is more distant than "will" future. I think one is more an expression of intent or destiny, while the other is more an expression of fact. "I'm going to do my homework later" could be rephrased: "I intend to do my homework later." "I will do my homework later" is more a statement of fact. "It's going to rain soon" describes the inevitability of the change in weather, whereas "it will rain soon" has more of a factual feel. But neither the doing of the homework nor the change in weather have a more distant or proximal feel as a result of the future form chosen.
As an English speaker I don't see any difference in English between the simple future and the present continuous of "to go" plus infinitive -- neither in terms of proximate versus distant future, nor in terms of intention versus fact.
If forced to take sides on Mauro's statement, I would reverse it in some situations: "I am going to do my homework" sounds perhaps slightly more immediate than "I will do my homework -- but other examples might suggest the opposite. I don't think there is much in this distinction.
Turning to mateo's idea, the whole notion of stating facts about the future seems problematic, not least when it comes to the weather.
Well I think I figured out why sometimes DL rather "will + inf" than "be going to + inf" for the translation of "ir a + inf" ... Most of the time the perfect translation is "going to + inf" but when the outcome is uncertain "will + inf" is the better choice (other example : va a encontrar sus llaves = he will find his keys --> you are not sure he will find them so you use "will + inf" instead of "going to + inf" )
If I have understood you correctly, behtii, you are saying that "He is going to find his keys" expresses greater certainty than "He will find his keys." I'm afraid that I find it difficult to detect a difference of any consequence, but if forced to take sides I would say that "will" is very slightly more definite.
I get so ...... sick and tired of using the translations that are provided in the hints and having them rejected. The #%@ word "pais" also means land. Why the #%@ is it rejected as the translation? "They are going to gain control of the land" is a perfectly acceptable translation of this sentence. How is the translator to know the context in which it is being used?
In this case, it is teaching you the "ir + a + infinitive" construction, which means "to be going to (do something")
"Voy a comer" - I am going to eat.
"Ellos van a obtener..." - They are going to obtain... Duo translates this as "they will" which is actually the future tense. "They will" and "they are going to" are two separate tenses.
There are tons of other uses for "a" and other prepositions after verbs...