Speaking Uk English we would not say eyeglasses. Most people would refer to them as glasses. Being pedantic, as I am an optometrist, I would call them spectacles.
Margaret-Anne: I first read 'optimist' which made me think you were hoping DL would someday finally revise its very short-sighted policy against UK English; realizing then you'd said 'optometrist' of course is from my point of view a game-changer and so to do my part to avoid turning this question into a spectacle, given how glassy-eyed I for one have become, I say, let's encourage DL to call them all three and hope that #1 DL finally sees the merit in the UK preferred term and accepts 'spectacles' and #2 refrains from introducing any sentence in the future involving monocles, contact lenses, lorgnettes, pince-nez, or worse eye-patches. As an afterthought, I agree with you that people would generally refer to 'them' as glasses (if not spectacles) rather than 'eyeglasses' and yet it's interesting that the case that holds them would never be called a 'glasses case' but an 'eyeglass' case (sg) though the plural 'eyeglasses" case is also used, perhaps even 'spectacles case"?.
You are thinking of "prendere." The root meaning of "portare" is "to carry." Depending on context, it can also mean "to wear" or "to bring."
I can't believe they disallowed "eyeglasses" as a translation of "occhiali"...
Thanks for the support, jaye16; I usually do report such things, just can't remember now whether I did! Will certainly keep it in mind for the future. Stay well.
I wrote 'she carried the glasses'.. Can anyone tell me why that is not correct?! Graziemille.
"Portava" is in the imperfect tense. So "was carrying" is a better translation than "carried," if you want to interpret portare here as meaning "to carry." However, since the object is "occhiali" = "(eye)glasses," "was wearing" is more likely.
I can't believe they disallowed 'spectacles'. A slightly archaic word perhaps, but there is no other word for 'spectacles' but 'occhiali', according to Word Reference.
Kieran...It should be accepted. Others feel the same way, if that's any consolation. The only thing you can do without turning this into, well, a spectacle is report it.
Kieran -- then go ahead and make a spectacle of yourself - get their attention. It's very short-sighted of DL not to act on users' suggestions.
After all, 'Girls who wear spectacles don't get their necks tickled' is as valid as 'Boys don't make passes at girls who wear glasses'.
The duo hover clues for portava include "was/were taking" so why isn't it accepted? Other clues are "was/were wearing" and "was/were bringing." It is impossible in this limited context to assume "wearing" is the most likely solution, isn't it?
robowalker2: No, I don't think so. If given 3 choices involving eyeglasses and told to choose the MOST likely solution and the MOST logical choice between: a) she was taking eyeglasses b) she was bringing eyeglasses & c) she was wearing eyeglasses, then I suspect 99 out of 100 people would choose c. My point being why go out of your way to choose an answer which while possible, even logical, isn't the most likely solution?
Why not "wearing her glasses"? I get more and more confused as sometimes the definite article alone can be translated by the possessive and sometimes not.
I had the same issue. Many times before this was a/the correct solution. I think her it is simply not (yet) in the accepted set :-)
I am fairly certain that when talking about an article of clothing or something commonly worn the possessive can be omitted (is implied). Omission is only allowed if the thing is the main object of the verb. I tried here because I think her is implied here, or certainly could be, given the correct context.
That is acceptable, although they won't give it to you. "Portare" is to wear as well as to bring... but to wear is the more probable scenario here I guess.
Check it out e with many eights .. I thought I would ask anyways, and I just got a mail from duo that said they now accept this translation. So thanks for giving me the confidence to ask; apparently reporting works. I have been posting less and reporting more, lately.
Why was she wore the spectacles not right? I thought that spectacles is quite a common word for glasses in England.
Why not "She used to wear glasses". Very different from how they translated it.
If 'spectacles' is a commonly used synonym for glasses in the UK (which I don't know) than it should be accepted and should be reported. It would not be said in the US, so that is most likely the issue.
The phrase states 'gli occhiali'; however, there is no 'the' tile in the answer. Why is this omitted?
felizfortytwo: Hard to answer, but sometimes foreign languages -- and I'm obviously referring to Italian, but also German with which I'm familiar -- will use articles differently than English does; sometimes they'll include them where English wouldn't and vice versa. I think the best policy is to try to notice where articles are or are not used so you'd express yourself correctly in Italian but then translate sentences into English in a way that sounds natural, including or omitting the article as you see fit. This may not result in 2 sentences that are identical word for word, but in my opinion that's ok.
How do I tell the difference between "she was wearing glasses" and "she used to wear glasses" ? In context, these could be very different. For example, if I were reading a story about someone, and it said "Lei portava gli occhiali" how would I know if she still was?
dagreenkat: Use of the simple past tense - here portava -- doesn't say anything about what the present situation is. It's only describing what the situation was in the past. So what would tell you if she still wears glasses is the context of the story.
Personally I think that in general conversation spectacles would never be used. At 71 I have an extended family who have always worn glasses. My children, in their 30's would never use spectacles in general conversation. It's like saying automobile instead of car - very antiquated.
"Wore" as opposed to "was wearing" has worked in other instances of this tense. Why the distinction here?