Reported it again December 2016 - the more people report a particular issue, the sooner Duolingo takes notice (?)
I usually use 'where were we' when a conversation has been interrupted and I am trying to get back to it .... sorry about that, where were we? Can this be used in this way?
Is "rimasti" necessary? Wouldn't "Dove eravamo?" also mean "Where were we?"?
I suspect it's an idiom. So the English 'Where were we?' used when we were doing something, and got interrupted, and got back to it, so it's asking what was the point at which we stopped or stayed. It's a figurative phrase. And it's in the dictionary as such. Sometimes these are things you encounter and just have to learn and remember because while it might not be a literal translation, it is what people who are native in that language use.
Look at the bottom of the first definition
Thank you for that. A useful site, AND a definitive answer to the question. Your good deed for the day is done. Adesso, dove eravamo rimasti ....?
That's helpful in answering the question of why it's said in this way in Italian (i.e. with "rimasti") but it doesn't answer the question of whether or not one can simply use "dove eravamo" to say the same thing. The original question from Altair0315 was whether rimasti is necessary in order to say this. I had that same question, and I still do. Anybody know if it's acceptable in Italian to simply use "dove eravamo" to say where were we? Thanks.
Yes, - but is it used in this contents?
"We where were?"
. . . is probably acceptable English, - but not the normal way to phrase it.
I’m guessing you are not a native English speaker since “we where were” is not in any way acceptable. You would only get a puzzled look if you said that to someone.
I think that the difference between the two is that by using the trapassato prossimo, which is used for an action before another event in the past, we are getting the sense of "where were we before we were interrupted (which is the usual context for use of this expression judging by the Reverso Context examples in the link below), whereas dove eravamo does not bother with the technicality of placing the query in time in relation to another event in the past.
It couldn't be anything other than an idiom. Literally "Where were we staying/where did we stay" becomes "Where were we/Where did we leave off". That's a text-book example of how "idiom" functions. There's logic to it, but the leap to the essence of the meaning is not apparent.
Wouldn't "Dove siamo stati?" also work? for DL's English translation? In my mind, 'dove eravamo rimasti?" is more accurately asking: "Where had we stayed?" with emphasis on "stayed", as e.g., referring to a hotel.
That is the "grammar-literal" translation. I guess the question is whether it can be translated with a different tense (simple past). DL does offer "where were we", which is definitely not rammar-literal...
"Era" can be translated to "had," but it gets confusing. "Era" is simple past tense of "è" in general "era" means "was." "Era fantastico." means "It was fantastic."
But in circumstances where a verb takes essere (instead of avere) to form its perfect tenses, then "era" becomes "S/he had" or "It had" "Era venuto qui" means "He had come here." With reflexive verbs, you use essere, so "He had woken himself up" is "Si era svegliato."
Since there were no pastperfect choices among the options, I wrote: Where had we remained. It was accepted Jan2018
"Where had we left off?" was not accepted, but seems to be a valid translation. What do you think?
The prompt for "rimasti" offered "stayed" etc, but when included in the answer they are rejected. Why bother to add them as a prompt if their use in the answer is wrong?! Very confusing, and frustrating.
this sentence can be interpretated in many ways … so DL be tollerant please !