No, no; camilo0o0o actually asks a good question.
I mean, "Bevo l'acqua" is both "I drink water", and "I drink THE water".
"Bevo acqua" is, as far as I am concerned, ungrammatical. Why is "Vediamo uccelli" grammatical? Any italian around, please?
Well, I'm italian and I can say that the sentence is grammatically correct, but actually doesn't sound very "italian"... I mean, if I were in that situation I'd probably say "vediamo DEGLI uccelli" ... The sentence "vediamo GLI uccelli" means that you're seeing the specific birds that you were expecting to see, but if it is a casual event i think that "degli" (some) is the best option ;)
What part of Italy? degli uccelli sounds grammatically very French to me, so I immediately jumped to the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that you are perhaps from the part of Italy near France.
I must admit that vediamo uccelli sounds wrong to American me because the number of birds would be countable - a limited number, even if a lot of them - so it's not exactly general in nature.
I've gotten the idea from the number of comments here by native-speakers that the rule regarding a required use of the article in Italian is changing - that forty years ago, it would have been required here, without question, but now, that's not so clear.
Same question. I seem to recall learning that unlike English, Italian always uses a definite or indefinite article with a noun. But it seems like Italian is more like English than I was told, because I keep coming across examples when the article is omitted and the meaning is different because of that omission. Fine - when the exception swallows the rule, you just accept it and move on.
Well, that'd be "we see the birds," and I guess Duolingo decided to leave out the "the" part of the sentence
I notice that when there is a vowel at the end of a word and at the beginning of the next word, the words kind of run into each other. It sounded like she said, "vediamo ccelli" instead of "vediamo uccelli". Is there a particular reason why? I hope my question is understandable
I'm no expert, but I think these elisions probably just happen when thousands of people speak quickly in a language over hundreds of years. It's not something intentional, it just naturally evolves so that things slip off the tongue more easily. It's probably similar to how contractions arose in English - after awhile, people saying "cannot" (two syllables) over and over found themselves saying "can't" (one syllable).
I don't know about other romance languages but there are contractions in Romanian too. It seems a bit like in English, only that there are more. For example, both "nu îmi" and "nu-mi" are grammatically correct.
Two thoughts on this topic, keeping in mind that the original comment was 4 years ago, and the audio has probably improved since then:
When new to a language, a lot of people just don't hear things because those things are unexpected. The more familiar one becomes with a language, the more the ear can pick up.
The more familiar one becomes with a language, the more one can anticipate what comes next, and even fill in things that are indeed missing. An example would be that you hear i uccelli, but realize that gli is required, so you mind fills it in, even if the "li" sound gets elided to i somehow.
What's the difference between vedere and guardare? I once used vedere in an answer and it told me it was wrong.
vedere: to see
guadare: to watch or to look at.
You can see something in an instant and then look away. That's not "watching". "Lookin at" means casting one's glance in the direction of, but not necessarily seeing. "I looked at the crowd of women, but I did not see my wife."
I wrote "We look at birds" and I got it wrong. It's basically the same as "We see birds."
I think that "to look at" is a better translation for the verb "guardare", that implies that you're paying attention to the birds, but "vedere" indicates quite a casual action, that is "the birds were passing by and we saw them".
Looking at means you are doing something for a period of time. See something applys to a spacific moment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So how would you say the ducks? I know the duck is l'anatra but to say the ducks would you say le anatre or gli anatri? But for the latter you would be then giving it a masculine ending! Help Please?
"Le anatre" = "the ducks". Anatra is feminine and has to have the feminine plural ending (swap the a to an e) and the feminine plural "the" which is "le". I might be over-simplifying, but that's the general idea.
Note that, with plurals, you never turn them into contractions. Before a vowel, la and lo become l', but the plural article is always either le, i or gli.
Second note: It's lo which becomes l', not il. You can reach that conclusion only indirectly. Words that begin with z, gn, and s + [consonant] take lo/gli, so it follows that a word which takes gli in the plural (masculine nouns beginning with a vowel) also take lo in the singular. Thus, l' is short for lo/la, and il is never made into a contraction because it never appears before a word beginning with a vowel.
I lived in Kansas for 30+ years. The closest I've come to a tornado was when we moved to North Carolina, and an F 0.5 hit about 3 miles from our house. No basements or storm shelters here, either.
I find it very difficult to understand this woman. The guy can speak clearly but all her 'e's and 'i's sound identical, her 'v' sounds like a 'd'. Many times her 'una' sounds the same as 'un' - completely dropping 'ah' sound. Very frustrating. Anyone else having issues with her?