"Non so dov'è la stazione ferroviaria."
Translation:I do not know where the train station is.
In British English the chances are that you would simply say "station" not "railway station", because without any other modifier (like "bus") trains are assumed. But DL marks this wrong.
Me too (Australian). Station is used to mean railway station in Aus. If you ask where is the station everyone knows you mean railway station. I realised too late that DL is pretty pedantic.
No English speaker says 'train' station. They might say railway station but usually just station.
Francesco: Wrong. I'm native and would say: "train station" and incidentally I'd never say "railway" station as to me at least that sounds old-fashioned an antiquated. Just saying 'station' out of context, could also mean, 'bus station.'
Interesting how imprecise a language can be, I can never remember anyone saying 'train station'. I wonder how commonly such differences are subconsciously ignored and translated to what we would normally say. Mostly I find people simply say 'station' but having read what you say I must investigate further. 'Train station' to me sounds very much in keeping with American usage of the language. Using DL has made me aware how personal the interpretation of a language can be. EDIT: Well first person I asked said 'Train station'. Came across an article in British newspaper which suggested 'railway station' is dated, being replaced by American import 'train station' which drew some hostile comment! I'll stick with what I know.
Some disagreement between native speakers here. I think people in England would very rarely refer to a railway station as anything other than a 'station'. Someone asking the way would say 'could you tell me where the station is please'. Yes, there are many other types of station, but these would be specified: i.e. 'where is the bus station'. Just 'station' would always be taken to mean the railway station. Or train station.
FranFrik: I see your point but I think a lot depends on the locale. In a small town/city e.g. that doesn't have a train station, then station by itself would be taken to mean a bus station and would suffice. But in a larger metropolitan area, serviced by both busses -- local and interstate -- as well as trains, then not specifying which will only illicit the question: Well, which one, ma'am! Time's a wastin'!
Glad to see good old antiquated 'railway station' is allowed now, although I prefer just station.
I am a US English speaker, and I would certainly say "train station," unless it was very clear in context that my reference would be to the train station. Even then, I would probably say "train station."
I probably wouldn't say "railway station," but that's probably a regional variation - and I wouldn't bat an eye if someone used that term.
"Station" by itself could mean bus station, police station, work station, or any of a number of other locations.
If you live in a city that has both bus and train service, you'd better specify which station you mean.
I wonder why you discarded the "ferrovia" from the italian sentence? Stations come in many flavors - gas, bus, police, charging, induction, space
Yes I did exactly the same, it does say train station, but in English it is not needed.
"I don't know where the station is" is a completely correct sentence in English. You do NOT need to specify "rail" station. Certainly not where I live! "Station", "rail station" and "railway station" are one and the same
Actually now i see the word ferrovia, but its in a colour which doesn't show up on my screen. Maybe you could get rid of the pale yellow lettering?
It's wrong. Although "station's" is a contraction for "station is," you would not use it at the end of the sentence and usually not in written English. You could say "The station's there," but NOT "where the station's."
Agreed, Soglio. I'd add: I don't know where the station's AT, -- though that too is colloquial.
"Where [something] is at" is generally not considered standard usage, though it's not uncommon. The "at" is redundant. I'd certainly edit the "at" out of written text, but merely cringe if someone uses it in speech. ;-) [Native US English speaker]
I totally agree as I said above. I just thought I'd mention a situation, cringe-worthy perhaps, but one nonetheless that's fairly common (maybe too 'common') where "station's" would function not as a possessive (its usual use), but as a contraction of "station is" along with "at". So bottom line: No, it's not proper English, but yes, you'll definitely hear it.
I'm meditating on status of the word "ferroviaria" which seems to work as and adjective (and it is Explained as such in the pop-up window). But how can a noun be an adj.?
Hi, I think you may be thinking of 'ferrovia' which is the noun for 'railway?' Ferroviaria is an adjective, as you correctly expressed above. Hope this helps!
are you asking if it should be marked as correct, or asking why it actually is marked as correct? I would not consider it correct since "station's", at least in English, is a possessive form, meaning something that belongs to the station. It is not a contraction of "station" and "is".
"Station's" IS a perfectly legitimate contraction of "station is," but contractions generally are not used at the end of a sentence in English. Here is one explanation: http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/using-contractions.html
You could say "The station's over there," for example.
[Native US English speaker]
this is not correct English word order. You would be understood but would sound like a foreigner. No native English speaker would say this.
A grammatical question for native speakers. Shouldn't the part of the sentence be subjunctive since the sentence is expressing doubt?!
Non so dove sia la ferroviaria.
Question for native speakers: how common is the word ferroviara? I've been in Italy for over a month now and have taken plenty of trains, but this is the first time I've seen (or at least noticed) this word.
5 exercises ago, stazione ferroviaria was translated as train hub and now is transalated as train station. What's going on?
"Where the train station is""where is the train station""where it is""where is it" at this point it is not italian that bothers me, English is.
Why can't I write : I don't know where the train station is? I lost a heart for that answer.
Conoscere is to know, or to meet, someone; sapere is to know, or to learn, something.
DL accepted my sad translation "I do not know where is the railway station"
fendavo: Don't be sad, but to clarify, the verb "is" should really be at the end of the clause.
In England I'd never normally say "rail station". Either "station", what I put, or "railway station".
Original...They're 2 different words, the latter a contraction of 2 words. dove means 'where'. dov'é is a contraction of dove and é> dov'é. So: Dove sono i libri? Where are the books? Dov'é il libro? Where is the book?
Regardless of whether you speak american or british english, the fact that DL teaches La Stazione as "the station" and not "train station" at the beginning should be taken into account.
It's poor teaching practice to mark the student as wrong if the teacher did not teach the student correctly in the first place!
I studied abroad in Italy and while I was traveling I always only used "la stazione" referring to the train station and was always understood. Also signs and maps simply used La Stazione. I figure you could just use the specific name of the station as well if you needed to clarify.