"I do not think so."
i think this is a literal expression. Actually, I am surprised more people do not question the big disparity between what was written in english and what was written in spanish.
Why is "lo" required when used with pienso e.g. "no lo pienso" but not when used with creo e.g. "no creo"?
it's perfectly fine to say 'no lo creo'. In fact, it's the exact same thing in terms of mood, tone, meaning, what have you.
In some places, "creo que" is preferred over "pienso que", and in others vice versa, to say "I think that". As far as I know, both are valid.
Agreed, although I notice that Spanish speakers seem to use "Creo que..." frequently when English speakers would use "I think that..." when expressing the same thing in English.
Is it possible that creo que can only be used in a positve statement and it is just no creo for a negative since they marked 'no creo que' wrong?
I think (haha, you can tell I'm a native English speaker) that when you use "No creo que" it means "I do not think that..." and it has to be followed by a clause in the Subjunctive mood or tense. You are right - "Creo" by itself means "I think (or believe)" and "No creo" by itself means "I do not think (or believe)". At least, that's my take on it. :)
Your take is spot on Linda :) the 'que' introduces a subordinate clause, so there needs to be a clause there. Otherwise, you simply say "no lo creo" or "no creo".
It can also be used for think when you are guessing or expressing doubt rather than stating a fact.
'No creo que sí' works only as long as you are saying it in response to an affirmative sentence. If I were to have said to you, "qué tontería dices! la estatua de la libertad está en Washington', and you think otherwise, you'd have to say "no lo creo" or "no creo". The two aforementioned are the most versatile forms you can use to reject a statement (be it affirmative or negative)
If you had put "No creo que sí", with the accent on the "i" that it probably would have been accepted. "No creo que si" without an accent on the "i" means "I do not think that if".
Funny how on some these they only allow a literal translation, even though others are acceptable, and then on others like this one, the count the literal ("pienso") as wrong. Whaaa?
I'm as confused as Rakdajin. Does crear change it's first person ending to something other than creo? I get the tu creas and tu crees but what is the yo version?
Also answered with 'No creo que sí' and was marked wrong. It seems to me to be correct to say it that way too
It seems "No creo", is 'i dont believe'. And, "Lo no pienso" would be 'I dont think so'.
This was asked 4 years ago, but never answered. (Rather, someone responded but didn't actually answer the actual question.)
Why is "No creo" okay but "No pienso" is not? If you answer "No pienso" you are told it must be "No lo pienso". Is this an oversight on the part of DL or is there an actual reason such as it being a fixed phrase?
It's a matter of function; pensar is a transitive verb that requires a direct object - the thing thought or not thought, while creer can be either transitive or intransitive. So, Duo insists the minimum with pensar is "I don't think it" - no lo pienso.
This is a difficult one for Duo. There are a lot of colloquial and idiomatic phrases in Spanish and English that would match this expression. Not even no lo pienso is an exact word-for-word match, but it probably comes closest. At the same time, when English speakers say things like "I don't think so," they are usually expressing a doubt or belief and, therefore, the natural translation would use creer rather than pensar.
The thing is, there is no one single phrase/sentence that is a perfect translation because this is just one of those common responses that we all use pet phrases to communicate. I'm sure I've answered "probably not" to mean the same thing.
Thus, there are many ways to express this in Spanish. Some of which are:
No creo que sí
Creo que no
No lo pienso
No lo creo
If we all continue to flag the more obvious ones, Duo should accept more variations. I tried creo que no and it was accepted (6/2018). Perhaps, many others work as well now.