I can just imagine this in some creepy movie.
Vedi il pescatori?
Non vedo nessuno.
That can be translated into Italian, though, as «Puoi vedere il pescatore?»
But that's unnatural in Italian, just as "do you see the fisherman?" is in English.
English uses "can" with verbs of the perception; Italian does not.
It is not unnatural in Italian or English. I am a native speaker of English, and I use the "do you..." construction all the time, much more than "can you...". It is not a matter of always using "can" with perception; it is what is meant/what the situation calls for. This is my opinion.
Americans often say 'Do you see x?' and 'I see x' etc. so it's not unidiomatic (in their dialects) nor incorrect. It's also appropriate if you're asking about a repeated event: "Do you see x [every morning]?" However, using 'can' is completely legitimate and versions with 'can' need to be added on all questions on this course involving verbs of perception. 'Can' usually doesn't need to be translated at all when it's used with verbs of perception in the present tense because in that context, it doesn't usually convey the meaning of being able to perceive something, only the fact of perceiving:
With verbs of ‘inert perception’ and ‘inert cognition’… there is little difference between being able to do something and actually doing it, so can tends to lose its distinctive modal meaning… With ‘verbs of inert perception’, furthermore, can not only loses its distinctive modal value, but has the additional special function of denoting a state rather than an event. As the Simple Present of these verbs has only an ‘instantaneous’ event meaning… the main difference between… I can see and I see is one of perception as a state versus perception as a (momentary) event
"Can you see x" can mean either "Vedi x?" or "Puoi vedere x?" and both of these can be translated into English as "Can you see x?"
is ''il pescatore'' just for men or it's for both of them.
Cause we use different words for ''doctor'', for example.
"Can you see the fisherman ?" should definitely be accepted as a correct translation here.
in another training element it was said that il pescatore and un pescatore both meant a fisherman but here it is the other way around. Any ideas?
Are you referring to Mio padre fa il pescatore? When talking about professions you can use fare + il/la to mean works as a or is a.
Why not, "See the fisherman?" That would be perfectly acceptable and grammatically correct in English, I believe. I'm not sure why it has do have You or Do you...
"See the fisherman?" is quite correct and could be directed to one person or to a group. Adding "Do you..." is more precise but not more correct.
Duo is a computer program. And it's programmed to mostly ignore punctuation. So it really can't tell the difference between "See the fisherman" as a statement or as a question.
Besides which, Duo tends toward textbook-level language instruction, and while I agree that "See the fisherman?" is perfectly fine in ordinary speech, the fact is it's not "textbook" the way "Do you see the fisherman?" is.
By the way, fishmonger is said in Italian "il pescadero / la pescadera". Very close to "il pescatore".
Spinneweber suggested that fisherman was good idiomatic English 2 years ago! Why haven't you changed it?