"Siamo andati al parco a suonare."

Translation:We have gone to the park to play.

July 26, 2013

This discussion is locked.


Shouldn't this sentence use "giocare" instead of "suonare"? I suppose someone could go to the park to play an instrument, but it I were to see the English version of this sentence I certainly wouldn't infer that.


It would make sense in context, like if the person speaking were carrying a guitar.


Definitely should be giocare.


when do we use di or da or a before the infinitive?


Di is of, da is from, a is to


DuoLingo is mostly right. However this time the Italian phrase should have used the word "giocare".


I had exactly the same thought,


Me, too. The audio didn't sound like "giocare" but the word seemed to fit. And that lost me my last heart.


I just had the exact same sentences twice in a row with only "suonare" and "giocare" switched. What is the difference?


giocare con qualcuno = to play with somebody

recitare in un film = to play in a movie (to 'star' in ...)

suonare uno strumento = to play an instrument


Can we please have this fixed? Several comments about it being incorrect


I suppose the speaker must be one of a group of buskers!


Indeed, she was a balladeer.


Why "a suonare" but "da perdere"?


Shouldn't this be "per suonare"?


Why "We went to the park for playing music" is wrong? Thank you

  • 1671

I think it should be, 'TO play music'. 'We went to the park for playing music' sounds like that's what the park was for - to play music in!


Because the Italian phrase does not mention music. Sure, suonare implies that you are controlling an instrument, but DL does not seem to accept translations that "complete the story".


I used the colloquial version of play...to jam


Why is ''gone'' used here instead of ''went''?Not a native speaker :-)


Simple past: We went to the park.
Present perfect: We have gone to the park.

There is a lot of overlap between these. The simple past is for actions that happened before now. The present continuous is for actions that happened in the past (same as simple past) or that started in the past and continued to present time. For example, I would say We went to the park every day last week, but We have gone to the park every day this week. If "this week" is at its end, then both "went" and "have gone" seem equally good, but "have gone" might imply that we will continue going next week.

If someone asked my what we did today (in the evening), I would say We went to the park to play. If we were currently at the park and someone called me on the phone and asked what we were doing, I would answer We have gone to the park to play. If they were at our place and called to say "Hey, where are you?", I might use either of those answers. To me, using "went to the park" would have a little more emphasis on the leaving home to go there ("hey, you just missed us") and "have gone to the park" would have a little more emphasis on our being at the park. However, others might disagree that there is any difference in emphasis.


i am confused - we have "a" with infinitive as here, "di" with infinitive as in "deciding" to do something and "da" when it's difficult to do something. What is the system? How do I know which to use and when?


It depends on the verb and the purpose of using the prep. Es Vado da Anna/ to Anna'house. Vado a lavorare/ go to work Vado di casa in casa/ go from house to house Vado di qua / go there


One uses da in front of a person's home (casa da Silva). I don't know why i just know that.


They must be musicians then


Yeah it should be giocare

Learn Italian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.