Translation:The children run through the restaurant.
Tack så mycket! I'm getting right to work on translating it and expanding my vocabulary! By way of a thank you gift, here's a poem about a naughty girl from an American poet. When my grandmother recited this to me, I knew that I had lost the battle and that I had better give up and behave.... http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173916
I didn't know this was by Longfellow!
Maybe I got the idea it was English because of a little girl who recited it loudly to herself, with feeling, the whole time she was in the shower next to mine at a campground in Europe. She had the cutest English accent with no H's pronounced, and "i" pronounced like "oy," and a T at the end of a word turned into a glottal stop. So it was, "Roy' in the middle of 'er fore'ed." She must have been about 6 years old and I was a few years older. So cute! My sister and I got a kick out of her sweet voice, and her accent, and the fact that she said it about 50 times in a row, lol!
The spelling "thru" should be accepted. It is used, albeit mainly in informal circumstances, certain set phrases, or when compactness is desired; but still it should be considered an accepted spelling. Besides, anyone with a conscience about the harmful effects of a highly irregular orthografy will prefer the spelling "thru" over "through".
You mean, you hav no sympathy for the millions ov English-speaking children who struggle to learn to read and write and in all-too-many cases, fail to become functionally literate? Through, though, bough, enough, cough -- "ough" words where each word's pronunciation must be learned on a case-by-case basis; the idea that learning to read and write such a system isn't needlessly difficult (i.e. much more difficult that with a much-more-transparent orthografy such as Spanish), is a blatant lie. The premise, that the less transparent the orthografy, the harder and more laborious it is for children to learn to read and write, and the more likely children ar to fail to learn to read and write efficiently; is not my opinion and never will be. Why? It is a fact, not an opinion. It is clearly seen, again and again, in Handbook of Orthography and Literacy [should be ov, Orthografy], which i am reading.
In ?June 2017, wun boy, whom [?hoom] i know [?no] somewhat, about 12 years old at the time, told me that he couldn't read or write. Without consulting anywun, i knew the culprit. His statement ensures that writing "through" instead ov the more fonetic "thru" (or writing "have" instead ov the more fonetic "hav") will always mean i am violating my own conscience. I resent, and ought to resent, being forced to violate my own conscience in order to get my answer accepted.
Refusing to accept the widely-used "thru" because it's supposedly non-standard is, to parafrase You are the President II by Nathan Aaseng, " just more ov the same jelly-spined fears that brought [?brawt] our language to its current sorry state." (The original wording is [approximately], "just more of the same jelly-spined fears that brought our nation to its current sorry state" [i.e. the U.S. Civil War; in a chapter about Abraham Lincoln].)
I do not necessarily disagree about English orthography, but please consider that this is a language course. Teaching, or accepting, non-standard spellings is specifically opposed to the goals of this course. If or when English spelling does change, the course will change accordingly, but it will not be a driving force behind such a change.
You mean, you hav no sympathy for the millions ov English-speaking children who struggle to learn to read and write and in all-too-many cases, fail to become functionally literate?
You're reading an awful lot into a single word there. Surely you can argue your point without claiming that somebody doesn't care about millions of others.
“You mean, you hav no sympathy…?” Sorry for writing that. I was inferring or implying something that maybe i shouldn't hav. I should hav been more charitable. It is hard to remain fully civil when discussing something at obviously, and with good reason, angers you.
Still, would accepting the spelling “thru” really amount to ‘teaching’ such a spelling, given that the user is likely a nativ English-speaker (as i am) and knows English spelling? Second, is the spelling “thru” really nonstandard?; it is widely used and any competent English-speaker will readily recognize it as a spelling variant ov “through”; the only reason you don't normally see “thru” in formal texts (e.g. books) is that people hav been propagandized in school into thinking said spelling is less ‘correct’ and not suitable for formal texts. (A simplistic explanation, but you get the idea.) Third, if Duolingo teaches, or at least accepts, the spelling “thru”, people around the world (incl. non-nativ English-speakers) will start using it, and we will get some badly-needed relief from our un-fonetic spelling. Fourth, your argument that “Teaching, or accepting, non-standard spellings is specifically opposed to the goals…” is more ov the same jelly-spined fears; as if teaching or using the spelling “thru” is somehow unprofessional. It is not; instead it shows genuine and charitable concern for the corrosiv effects ov a highly irregular orthografy. Instead we need to take a firm, bold stance in favor ov a more-transparent spelling system.
In Duolingo i wunce misspelled “thank you” as “tank you” (carelessness, obviously), and what i wrote was forgiven as a ‘typo’; even tho' according to a literal reading ov Duolingo's policy it shouldn't hav been. (The policy is that misspellings will be forgiven as ‘typos’ if (a) the difference is only wun letter [as is the case here] and (b) the misspelling is not a preexisting word.) “tank you” is definitely a misspelling (rather than a spelling variant), just because “tank” is itself a separate word.
Another ‘typo’ that shouldn't hav been forgiven according to a literal reading ov said policy (but was), is when i wrote “elefant” for “elephant” (again, ov course, my practice ov consciously refusing to use standard spelling); technically this involvs not wun but two letter changes (ph → fh → f). Also, i don’t think the spelling “elefant” is standard anywhere in the Anglosfere, while “thru” is (sort ov). As i explained, forgiving said two ‘typos’ (“tank you” and “elefant”) was arguably less justified than accepting “thru” would be. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thru; said spelling variant is described as ‘informal’ (and as being commonly used in some contexts) (rather than a ‘misspelling’ or ‘nonstandard’).
Still, would accepting the spelling “thru” really amount to ‘teaching’ such a spelling, given that the user is likely a nativ English-speaker (as i am) and knows English spelling?
That's the thing - millions of people have tried out the course, and literally hundreds of thousands of those do not speak native or even fluent English. I get comments literally every week about how happy people are to improve their English, or about how they're taking the course to learn Swedish while understanding English better. Even though this is a course in Swedish, it is very much also a course in English. This is a large problem for us - because we occasionally need to accept unidiomatic English to better teach some Swedish concepts, but we also do not want to accidentally teach bad English.
The way I see it, change can be good and English could certainly benefit from simplified orthography in the long run - but getting those changes from your language teacher, the person you trust to teach you the language, is a bad thing. Imagine if someone tried writing "ov" and "hav" in real-world usage, any recipient of such a business email would think that person was incompetent. Similarly, putting "thru" in your CV might absolutely disqualify you from getting a job interview if the hiring manager is harsh enough. Hence, teaching such usage would potentially be doing people a huge disservice.
Second, is the spelling “thru” really nonstandard?; it is widely used and any competent English-speaker will readily recognize it as a spelling variant ov “through”; the only reason you don't normally see “thru” in formal texts (e.g. books) is that people hav been propagandized in school into thinking said spelling is less ‘correct’ and not suitable for formal texts.
Yes, I think any major dictionary would list it as nonstandard. I mean, frequency does not necessarily correlate with standardness. Hence, we have loads of comments in these forums that say things like "that's common colloquially but should not be used otherwise". That way, we can teach the "accepted" version (whatever that means) while still giving secondary information to the people who want it. I admit it's not an ideal system, though.
I think my first answer also covers your third and fourth points, but I want to add that even if we were to drive through such a change, there needs to be some consensus about the spelling reform as well. You've obviously changed some aspects of how you write, but I could easily change a hundred more words in your comment to improve its orthography. My point isn't that you're wrong, but that any such spelling reform would need to come from a common understanding, otherwise you just end up with a thousand different variations of English again.
As for Duolingo's typo algorithm, that's all handled automatically so it's hard to comment on as I'm not involved in it. Let's just say that while it's mostly correct, it does have some glaring shortcomings... :)
In summary, I wish you the best of luck in your mission to improve English - and I mean that; it's not sarcasm - but this isn't really the best place to do it.
(Sorry about the multiple weird posts. I screwed up my copy-pasting and Duolingo wouldn't let me edit it...)