"No ha llovido en todo el día."
Translation:It has not rained all day.
it has not rained the whole day. Was marked wrong. All day was what duo wanted. But why is it wrong?
"... the whole day" is still marked wrong on 20 Feb 2018. Have reported it again, but does reporting really help?
noamdt and chaolan, If you left out the 'en', 'todo el día' would gramatically be the direct object. as if it were raining 'days', as in raining cats and dogs.
I think you have to specify that it rained "in"(en) the day, or the sentence might mean that 'the days are raining'.
I put "it has not rained at all today" and was marked wrong. Couldn't this translation work??
Emily, the 'all' modifies 'day' and is an adjective, whereas if you say ...rained at all, the 'at all' modifies 'rained' and is an adverbial phrase.
The pronunciation of "llovido" sounds like "chovido," which I know is not a Spanish sound. But it did confuse me, since I thought the double ll was always more like a "y." Is this a regional pronunciation difference?
depending on the country, and the speaker, 'y' and 'll' may be pronounced 'y', 'j', or 'zh.' In Argentina all y's and ll's are always 'zh.' In the US I watch Spanish programming on Univision and Call now! = llama ya = yama ya or jama ja or zhama zha, depending on the speaker In the same town in Mexico some people say 'yo' as yo, some say 'zho'
Rspreng is absolutely correct. From my limited experience, I hear Mexicans pronounce the double LL as an English Y. But Colombians pronounce it like an English J. Guess you need to be prepared for both, but, to me, it only adds to all the other challenges.
Thank you! This was very helpful and makes perfect sense, since English also has many regional pronunciations and even lexicons. Duolingo is wise to preserve these elements of a living language.
Guess they can't do everything. My U of Chicago Spanish dictionary gives dozens of country-specific alternative meanings, which is more than I can handle at this point.
But we are not doing word by word translation here. "It hasn't rained the whole day." and "It has not rained all day." have absolutely interchangeable meanings in English. Even "It has not rained at all today." is still talking about the same fact that there was no rain the entire day.
Let's discuss English for a moment then: "it hasn't * for the whole day" gives you 174 000 000 results in Google search are you absolutely certain that 'for' is incorrect here?
My problem with this sentence is that in English it is hard to distinguish the idea that there has been a whole day without any rain from the idea that it has been raining during the day, but not constantly.
I think the Spanish must mean "it has not rained at all today".
Is it the case that "ha llovido" implies that we are talking about today rather than a day some time in the past?
I do not understand why in Spanish is used the article and in English not ???
I am not a native English person, and when I am translating, I use to translate with the article.
"It has not rained all the day" is not correct, because appears article "the"
They are two different languages with two different rules and two different structures. Why would you expect the article to be used the same way in both?
I also answered that way. It seems like the issue is the use of the past imperfect, instead of the indicative. 'There has not been rain all day', would be translated as 'No ha habido lluvia todo el día.' Slightly different translation... I think :)