115 Comments This discussion is locked.
So, in this context, are we talking strictly about what is under the shoes, e.g. pavement, rocks, etc., or could in mean under in the sense of inside the shoes, e.g. socks, bare feet, etc.?
I was thinking more the former sense, but if you were asking, for example, "¿Qué tienes bajo la camisa?" could that be like, let's say, a singlet, or a police wire? Or would it be more like, a shirt on the table covering up a lumpy object about which someone is enquiring?
Does 'tienes' specifically mean 'you have'? Any comments or replies would be greatly appreciated. :)
tienes = you have
Because, while that sentence is similar in meaning, it isn't what the Spanish says. The verb "tiene" means "(you) have". So, a sentence which does not contain "have" is not a close translation. In addition, the sentence given by Duo says "the shoes", rather than "your shoes".
However, it doesn't accept "What have you under the shoes?" This is quite natural English, but Duolingo insists on the "got" in there.
In case anyone thinks, Duolingo is standing on grammatical formality (i.e., insisting on the implied "got"), in other situations it prefers the informal to the formal, so this argument would be inconsistent with the program.
I have read the thread. And I´m not sure you understand the difference between ´correct´ and ´used often/regional dialect¨. Being ´used to´ a certain vernacular does not mean said vernacular merits a place in a language-learning program. No offense, but I feel that in this format, formal should be taught before colloquial - we can learn that conversing out there in the wider world. Anyway forgive me, I don´t know why I´m discussing the differences in spoken English on a Spanish-learning forum. :)
Well, I guess the importance of getting the English right is because we want to see a "correct" translation. I've seen some pretty rough translations done by Duolingo. (Don't get me wrong, I love this program.)
The problem often lies not only in certain vernacular but in prescriptivist versus descriptivist views of grammar etc., no matter what part of the world or what dialect you use. To oversimplify, prescriptivists tend to see the language as more rule bound. Descriptivists tend to be more flexible. You can tell which way I lean. :)
Fair play. I´m happy that language evolves, but for something like Duolingo I tend to lean towards a more prescriptivist view. I think öfficial¨ bodies (dictionaries, universities etc.) are important for learning; I would say less confusion arises when we all study under an ¨agreed¨ ideal. But don´t get me wrong, it´s important that these institutions adapt to common parlance if and when necessary. The more we say it the more Webster/Oxford et al should adapt.
I have studied both prescriptivist (classroom/textbook) grammar, and descriptivist grammar (which is more abstract) and I have a degree in linguistics. "What have you under the shoes" may not be current in American English, but it might be more common in the Commonwealth dialects, and it certainly was the way to say it several hundred years ago. English is not a single, monolithic language (no language is monolithic) and "standard" not synonymous with "correct."
Really, what matters most is that Duolingo uses Standard American English, and that is the base from which to argue any usage issues.
I agree that no language is monolithic but, in this forum, why assert ¨What have you under the shoes¨ as ¨correct¨ (and descriptivist) if you´re saying Duolingo should use SAE (presciptivist)? That will just confuse anyone that reads these pointless posts. By the way, I speak a ¨Commonwealth dialect¨and I would never use a phrase like that. Actually, we would regard it as a crass Americanism.
Weighing in here as a an Englishman from England with an academic background in (mostly English) philology and linguistics, who makes a living teaching mostly English.
"What have you under the shoes" is certainly not an Americanism, and that sentence structure dates comfortably back to Anglo Saxon.
Same with other modern Germanic languages:
"wat heb je?", "was hast du?", "hva har du?", "hvad har du?", "vad har du?", "hvað hefur þú?"
Surely you wouldn't argue those to be "crass Americanisms"?
I'm not saying Duo "should" do anything, I'm saying "this is what it, in fact, does do."
I'm rather amused at the notion that both American and British speakers regard "What have you under the shoes?" as a weird thing the other guys say. I guess it's a regionalism that happens to be neither of ours. It certainly is an archaicism, which is why even though it might not be standard, I'm hard-pressed to say it's wrong. Even though it's not at all common to hear in everyday speech, it is preserved in poetry and literature.
Peeps jump in here with a question burning in their brains and have no time to read anything as they just got to get their burning question down and out of their heads before they forget it, a question which they are sure no one else would likely also have thought of it. This happens all the time. And that is your no-joke explanation.
That's correct! In Spanish, Portuguese, and German, we use the definite article instead of possessive in situations like this: He has a coin in "THE" hand (instead of "his" hand); she put something in "THE" mouth (instead of "her" mouth). I'm a native speaker of Portuguese and, when learning English, we have a hard time to get used to "stick something into OUR pockets" instead of "stick something into THE pockets" that is the format we use in Portuguese.
Not sure if anyone else had heard this, but I've heard debajo often used by spanish speakers to mean underneath. Perhaps this is just a regional thing though, the family I have that speaks spanish are Puerto Rican. The also don't use emparedado, they just say sandwich (with spanish pronunciation)
Anybody know where they do say "emparedado"? Mexico maybe? I see Wiktionary just says "central Americ, Caribbean".
I've never heard it, but I've been somewhat sheltered in my Spanish-speaking exploits, being as I've mostly chatted with Spanish girls here in England, and rather fewer Latin Americans.
It is a dollar bill this guy espied on the sidewalk that's now under his shoe. When he saw it he quickly stepped on it. Now his friend kind of saw it also or thinks he maybe did, but he's not sure. And the guy who saw the bill first is not interested in letting his friend have a share so he answers the question by saying, "Nothin.'"
Saying "those" or "these" adds extra information. The sentence as given invites a follow-up question:
What's under the shoes (los zapatos)?
Alternatively, imagine being in a thrift shop where the shoes for sale are all on one shelf, and you want to see if there's anything under them.
What's under the shoes?