Why is "They are going to feel nothing" wrong in this case? Spanish uses a double negative, so the suggested "They are not going to feel nothing" seems rather wrong to me. I can understand the second suggestion “They are not going to feel anything”; as this seems to be among the lines of my solution.
Because the use of double negatives is incorrect in English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative. I know it is increasingly common for people to use double negatives in modern American English, but grammatically it's still incorrect. On DL it is usually safer to use correct grammar rather than everyday usage.
Thanks, Til. I just wanted to point out that while it's not an uncommon mistake, absolutely no literate American would ever say, "They aren't going to feel nothing." Saying something like this would be a quick way to let everyone know you have poor verbal communication skills.
Remember, in order to REALLY kill the English language, we Americans must keep it half-alive for as long as possible. It's more painful this way. ;)
Just be aware that English sytax offers the option of saying either "They won't feel anything" or "They will feel nothing."
The rule for English: If a sentence contains an even number of negatives, then the meaning is positive; but if the sentence contains an odd number of negatives, then the meaning is negative.
In Spanish, conversely, double negatives are sometimes mandatory. See: http://spanish.about.com/od/sentencestructure/a/double_negatives.htm
I just want to add that in a scenario in which someone was vowing revenge, that person might say, "They aren't going to feel nothing!" However, that person's meaning would be: THEY WILL SUFFER! Just as with Spanish, the double negative would be used for emphasis, but unlike Spanish, the meaning would be of two negatives added together in order to negate each other and thereby convey a positive meaning.
Maybe if they were in a fight. "They aren't going to feel anything." as in they are going to be emotional husks incapable of having emotions. Though I would think going to the dentist and he, and his genderneutralself, gives them a numbing shot "They aren't going to feel anything." They won't feel the shot. That would be physical as opposed to emotional.
Does the above sentece work just as well with a reflexive pronoun(SE)? If the sentence was describing the "state of body/mind" in which the subject was in, then the reflexive pronoun would be necessary. Correct? How does the speaker determine if a reflexive pronoun is necessary when what he/she is feeling is not stated? The feeling of a mood/illness is much different than the feeling of an animate object (the rain/sun/wind). Whew! Hope someone out there understands what Im saying. Thanks
I agree that the english sentence would not normally be understood as referring to feeling an object ( cat, table, anything, etc) but rather to feeling an emotion ( sad, remorse, anything, etc.) and so if translating the english sentence into spanish i would normally use the reflexive to suggest feeling an emotion but I guess here the spanish IS referring to feeling an object....even though in english we would almost never interpret it that way.
I may be wrong, but I think that the reflexive pronoun is also required when the action of the sentence will affect the subject of the sentence. Thus, Voy va a caerse (tranlation: I am going to fall down/I will fall down; transliteration: I am going to fall down myself/I myself will fall down). What I am not sure about is when it should be "caerme" instead of "caerse."
Re the English version, there is a superb illustration of the danger of mindless word-for-word translation above where the double negative in English is produced. Re the Spanish here is my take on the relexive pronoun question: there is already an object of the verb to feel, namely nada, nothing. It's a bit more abstract than a table or a wall but it is a DIRECT OBJECT. When we use versions of sentirse, the reflexive pronoun - in this case 'se' would be appropriate - would also be a DO. You cannot have two DOs so hence no 'se' just as if a more concrete object was being felt.
I think the translation (defined as a transliteration tweaked so that a native speaker will find the language natural) of the Spanish word "sentir" into the English word "hear" is based on specific contexts. Without context to guide the translator, word-for-word transliteration is safest and probably the most accurate.
¡Gracias. Ahora tengo que estudiar los pronombres de objeto más para que yo pueda entender por qué comenzó la frase con "me!"
The verb "percibir" has a more general meaning of "perceive." If a translator were not familiar with this verb, he might substitute "sentir." This is weak, I must admit.
I guess they want you to translate it based on how one would use it in English, since English doesn't use double-negatives (well, people do but overall it isn't grammatically correct.) I guess it's like how duo won't agree if you type ''He has 8 years'' when you try to translate "Él tiene ocho años"; mainly because nobody says it that way in English.
I think it should be.....they are not "feeling" a table, etc. ( or not feeling it ie nothing) so I don't see how this sentence wouldn't be interpreted as then not feeling "bad", "happy", etc. Maybe if they are not "feeling" cold, hot, it wouldn't need to be reflexive either....? but not sure...
Precisely my complaint with a lot of these - in theory, they're not feeling a third person/thing, so "van" should be preceded by the reflexive pronoun "se." I feel like reflexive pronouns are often applied and omitted arbitrarily in these exercises and would appreciate an explanation from the staff.
Not unlike English. If somebody says "They aren't going to feel nothing.", they mean "They aren't going to feel anything." Thus nothing can mean anything in English. Nobody's going to mistake "They aren't going to feel nothing." for "They are going to feel something." and people do use double negatives in English. Be them "wrong", "impolite", "vulgar" or "unnacceptable", they are "used" or "heard". I am not advocating the use of double negatives in English. Somebody wishing to condemn double negatives can do it on their own time. I find the use of a good double negative quite exhilarating, but for heavens sake use them judiciously! I'm just sharing my thoughts.
It's the old problem of transliteration vs. translation. Sometimes, a literal translation makes no sense in the context of the rest of the sentence, paragraph, conversation, etc. When in doubt, fall back on the most common and exact meaning. Also, idiomatic usage has to be accepted for what it is. Spanish speakers routinely say "Anna hace la mesa" to mean "Anna sets the table," even though "hace" is literally "makes" in English.
i think it isn't reflexive because it is being done by a foreign object (ie: a needle, etc) where as with emotions we do it to ourselves feeling homesick, tire, etc. at least to the logic of the spanish language. though i'm sure you could argue that outside forces dictate how feel.
This section of lessons in Duolingo is designed to present, learn, and drill the phrasal future, which is "ir + a + verb". The direct, literal translation would be different than using the future conjugation. But, in actual context, meaning, and intent, I think they would be equivalent. So, in general conversation, you could use either to convey your meaning. But, since this set of lessons is for phrasal future, you should stick to the conjugation of "ir" followed by "a" plus the indicative verb, and not use the future conjugation.