"My friends will not see me eat their food."
Translation:Mis amigos no me verán comer su comida.
“Mis amigos no verán que me su comida.” – is that really correct? Why is there no translation of “eat”? (It was the only ‘correct’ answer in a multiple choice.)
indeed, the translation which is here on top should be an option instead of the one which is marked as valid.
can someone explain 'comerme' to me-for one thing you already have me just before that the would comerme be eat me?
So, in this sentence, the "me" is attached to "ver", not "comer". So, in this sentence, the "me" is attached to "ver", not "comer". My friends will not see me eat their food.
However, there is a reflexive verb "comerse". One of the uses of the reflexive is to discuss "completed actions". My canonical example of this is one that tranlates well to English:
Él sienta. He sits. As in, he sits on a chair, continuously.
Él se sienta. He seats himself. As in, he completes the action of sitting.
This is also seen with irse (where somebody goes away, rather than just being described in the act of going). Also caer (to fall) and caerse (to fall down -- when you use this one, you're saying that something or someone has fallen and hit the ground). And there's levantar (to lift, raise, or rise) and levantarse (to get up, or put something someplace upward). Bajar (to sink or move downward) and bajarse (to get down from: él se baja del tren == he gets off the train).
More esoterically, you can find this usage in stuff like comerse, "to devour, to eat up completely".
Él come una manzana. He eats an apple. He might still be eating it right this instant.
Él se come una manzana. He eats up an apple. There's none left.
You can kinda do this in English too, in colloquial expressions. There's a song that begins, "I'm gonna sit right down and write myself a letter." And you can say, "I ate myself a whole bunch of popcorn."
Mis amigos no verán que me coma su comida. That's what's missing on one of the solutions. If you too came across this error just report it.
It's subjunctive, expresses the possibility of me eating their food rather than me definitely eating it, that I already ate it, or that I'm eating it. I wouldn't use "como" in this sentence, but to give you an example: "Ellos no sabrán que me como su comida.", there you can use "como" because I already ate their food in the past and they're not going to know that I am the one who has been eating their food.
Or you can go with Duolingo's prefered translation "Mis amigos no me verán comer su comida." which is not the way I'd say it but is nonetheless a perfect translation.
as it was their food I thought sus was the correct answer, being plural,not su
"Sus" doesn't make reference to "my friends" it makes reference to "food", as food is singular "su" is singular, if you put "chips", for example, then you can use "sus patatas"
No, it's the secondary verb in a sentence like this that shifts to subjunctive. The ver part will be indicative. But you could use "coma" as your form of comer. Mis amigos no verán que me coma su comida.
It is, I have to admit it sounds weird that way, but when you put it in something like "No me dejan comerme su comida" it sounds better, and is still the same construction.
Isn't one of the "me"s redundant? I've seen the leading one and the one tagged on to the second verb, but not both at the same time.
Well, if you take out the first "me" the sentence will sound weird and be incorrect, if you take out the "me" in "comerme" it is correct, but still it is more natural to use both "me" 's in some cases. also it depends on the sentence, the verb and the construction, some sound better one way, even if the other one is still correct and others just add a little more emphasis. For example:
No me dejan comerme esto en paz. - No me dejan comer esto en paz.
Those two works just as well in both forms.
No me dejan llevarlo - No me dejan llevarmelo.
From these two, the second one just adds emphasis, "no me dejan llevarlo" means that the won't let me take it, "No me dejan llevarmelo" is more specific in the fact that they don't let me take it with me.
No me puedo comerme esto. - No puedo comerme esto. - no me puedo comer esto.
The first one is just plain wrong, the other two mean the same thing.
It seems like the "me" belongs just to "dejar". How can "comer" have an indirect object? Can one eat to onself?
Apparently yes, even if it sounds weird, take the word "comérmelo" and break is apart for a review.
Comer - to eat
me- indirect object, oneself
lo - direct object, that which you are eating
Basically, I eat it or to eat it myself. There are other cases when there is no other verb between "me" and "comer" that work on a similar way.
Yo me como esto todos los días. - Yo como esto todos los días. (both are just as natural)
Yo me bebo el jugo y tu te bebes el agua. - Yo bebo el jugo y tu bebes el agua. (it is more natural to say it like in the first one)
How this possibly be a correct translation, when the word for "eat" is not even included in the sentence ?Mis amigos no verán que me su comida.
Duoling: get your heads out of that dark place!!!!!!
"Mis amigos no verán que me su comida" is still expected as a correct answer (Nov 03 2016), DL please fix it!
Four years later and "comer" is still missing from the "correct" sentences....
I can't believe DL hasn't corrected the answer that shows up. I selected the only correct option but got marked wrong for not selecting an option that didn't include the verb eat in it.