if "the children want to have dinner" is accepted, then "the children want dinner" should be accepted also.
Indeed they mean the same thing but in learning to translate, we see that the target sentence uses "dîner" as a verb (to have dinner), not as a noun (dinner).
I understand, but "avoir" was never used in the French sentence. And further, is the point of language learning to translate verbatim, or to understand meaning and say it in coloquial speech? I find the latter far more effective in becoming fluent.
"The kids want dinner" should be accepted with a warning of the translation DL seeks.
We decided to accept "The children want dinner" in this case, however, we do not accept "kids" for "enfants". "kids" is "gamin(e)s", while "enfants" is "children".
I agree with WordSavant! I spend more time playing a form of Russian Roulette wrestling with inconsistencies and trying to second guess the exact translation Duo requires for similar sentences than I do actually learning. A coloquial understanding of sentences should be accepted. This would also eliminate the need for having to thrawl through pointless comments about how something is said, this way or that way, in the UK/US/Canada/Australia, etc., in order to find a helpful comment on a genuine query one might have.
'The children want dinner' would be 'les enfants veulent le dîner'. Direct object normally need an article or preposition like: le dîner, leur dîner,..
"Les enfants veulent dîner" isn't a word for word translation of "The children want to have dinner", so it shouldn't be a problem if "The children want dinner" isn't a word for word translation either.
The two sentences have the same impact on the children: they want something to eat. However, for learning purposes, "dîner" is a verb in the given sentence. It means "to have dinner". It is not used as a noun here. So while you may feel justified that your sentence means the same thing in reality, it's useful to know the difference.
Yes, but "to have dinner" is a set expression in English containing a verb.
Because dîner means "to dine", which by the way is still not accepted as a correct answer.
Nobody would say in English 'the children want to dine'. 'The children want dinner' is very much a correct translation.
"The children want to dine" is now accepted. Also, It's not impossible for someone to say that, It sounds a little odd and formal, but it's grammatically correct in English, and something I've heard at least a few times.
It is accepted in the inner reaches of Duo's brain but maybe there is some disconnect to the exercise. It is correct, even though it does sound quite odd and formal when speaking about children. "To eat dinner" is just fine.
It's strange that they have the correct translation as 'The children want to have dinner' if , as it has been suggested, Duolingo want to stress diner as a verb. 'To have dinner' clearly puts diner as a noun. I would understand it if it was veulent manger for example?
Actually, the expression "to have dinner" is the French verb "dîner". Nobody needs to stress dîner as a verb because it IS a verb in this sentence. As such, it is correctly translated as "the children want to have dinner". Some want to rephrase it as "the children want dinner" where "dinner" is a noun. You can certainly make such a statement, but that is not the translation of the sentence.
I'm not following. Are you saying that in "to have dinner", the word dinner is a verb? Isn't it clearly a noun, just like "to have tea" or "to have a bath"?
I think the reason 'The children want dinner' isn't accepted is because saying it like that makes dinner a noun and duolingo is trying to show us that dîner is a verb.
But in the sentence "the children want to have dinner" dinner is still a noun... I think as someone else said, the most accurate translation is "the children want to dine", although no one would really say that in English...
The verb "dîner" means "to have dinner" or "to eat dinner" (all rolled into one verb). One doesn't need to invoke the more formal "to dine" here. From the English side, it is referred to as a "translation unit", a group of words which are translated together. I.e., "to have dinner" = dîner. Another way to say it is that there is no "have" (avoir) in "have dinner".
This has been fixed. Where were you in the many months that Duolingo was demanding that "The children want to dine"? I was quite certain that you had posted agreement with the official position. Some moderators definitely had.
And who do you think fixes these things? I was off fixing some of the other 10,000 sentences that also need attention. I had not posted previously on this thread. The fact that we may both see "dine" as strangely awkward in this sentence does not, however, render it completely invalid. I think we're finished here.
Where I come from, "to have dinner" and "to dine" have different connotations. The 1st is to have your common, every day evening meal. The 2nd, to have an extravagant (high class) meal, probably at an expensive restaurant. If Duo accepts both does that mean the French "covers" both ideas?
The correction I was given was " the children want to eat dinner". How can that be if mange is not in the sentence.
As with many of the English translations, you have to learn what Duolingo want from us (when learning French) and not write what you think iscorrect English or possible to say in English. When you get the same sentence for the second time, you have to remember what Duolingo wants. Then you can go on without making the same mistakes
We're all here to learn a language with the intent of using it on our own, outside our room where the Duolingo owl teaches (correctly or not). The goal here is (or should be) being able to figure out by ourselves what to say and when say it. What duolingo wants is unimportant, it is HE that must learn the correct form, by checking our reports.
Yes, of course they can. "The children want to have dinner." "The children are playing in the yard."
In English, we can say both "The children want to have dinner," and "Children want to have dinner," though they have different meanings. (With the article--there are specific children who want to have dinner. Without, it's children in general who want to have dinner.)
I'm southern too. We have to have tolerance that the people managing the database can't program every regional nuance of English and have 30 correct answers to please everyone. This is to learn French, not teach the variety of possible English translations. We can remember that dinner = supper in Duoland, and focus on learning the French usages.
Not quite. "To eat dinner" is more specific than merely "to eat." If the children want to eat, it could be breakfast, lunch, dinner, or a snack.
Algorithms do not have anything to do with this.
Please back-translate: "the children want to eat" = les enfants veulent manger.
'"Dîner/to eat or to have dinner" gives you precise indications of the time of the day and the meal concerned.
"Manger/to eat" does not.
Why isn't "the children want to eat" valid? Is diner valid for eating dinner only?
"Les enfants veulent dîner" gives you the time of the day: dinner time, @8 p.m.
If you use "the children want to eat", you lose this piece of information.
Short answer, no.
Long answer, the word "Les," is used to specify a plural term such as "Les Enfants," whereas the "L'" is used more to specify a singular term, such as "L'enfant," or "l'orange."
Hope this helps.