- Forum >
- Topic: Italian >
- "Il mio giocattolo non si rom…
26 Comments
It makes "rompe" passive, or at least intransitive. Without "si" you would wonder what the toy doesn't break.
Could you use "si" in some other sentences to show how it would sound with and without the word?
Thanks in advance!
io chiamo Roberto
I call Roberto
.
io mi chiamo Roberto
my name is Roberto
(I am called) Roberto
Io alzo il tavolo
I lift the table
.
Io mi alzo
I get up (or I wake up)
I translated "si rompe" as "break itself" in both this example and the one about clocks - Duo marked me as correct for the latter, but not for this one. Any ideas why?
I do not get why lately every verb used in this subject (present 3) is explained with "You" mainly, but in the phrase is using for "He/She/It" MAINLY. Lol just an observation.
Si means "itself". Without it, one will think that the toy cannot break anything instead of "cannot get (itself) broken".
I inserted both "My toy does not break," as well as "My toy is not broken," in order to see if the latter would pass muster. No way of telling, from the response, unfortunately.
As anyone who has raised children knows some cheap toys break in about 30 seconds while other better made toys are quite endurable. I'm guessing that is implied here as obviously any toy, or any object, given enough force, will break.
What's wrong with "My toy is unbreakable?" Absolutely nothing as far as I can see. It is becoming evident that Duolingo cannot cope with comprehensive translation.
I hear alot of whining about Duolingo's strictness in marking the student responses for translation. Yes, there are inconsistencies and equivalency issues to be debated and argued, but this is how I see it: Duolingo leans heavily toward literal translations because they want you to demonstrate that you understand 1) the meaning of each word or particle in the phrase or sentence and 2) the role that is played by that word or particle as it contributes to the syntax and construct, and overall meaning. I am in total agreement with this as I attempt to understand the language and its evolution to its present day form. Frustrating at moments?...yes!... but I know that this path has the best chance of getting me to where I want to go.
Duo generally goes for pretty literal translations, and yours is more liberally translated than it would like.
This sentences says the toy does not go through the act of breaking.
Your sentences says the toy has the state of being unbreakable.
Similar, yes; the same, no.
I sort of agree with you, although don't blame "DuoLingo". There are people working very hard to think up all the possible translations and them list them in their end of the app.
I wanted to say "can't" or "won't break", which is pretty equivalent to your "unbreakable", because "doesn't break" implies that someone is trying hard to break it.
