"The question got no answer" is not gramatically correct in English. We would say "The question had no answer" we would never say the first one, even if it is word for word a translation. It just doesn't make sense.
They mean different things.
- The question had no answer = No answer existed for the question
- The question got no answer = The question was asked, but not answered
devalanteriel is correct in differentiating the meanings of "got" versus "had". Nevertheless, something sounds a little off about "The question got no answer". It is not a problem of grammar but one of semantics. Let me attempt to put my finger on it.
Suppose Person A asks Person B a question. If Person B gives an answer, it would go to Person A, not to the question. So, in the negative we would normally say "Person A got no answer", rather than "The question got no answer", although the latter version vaguely resembles the correct passive construction "The question did not get answered". To use "the question" as the subject in an active statement, it would be better to choose a more appropriate verb -- "The question elicited no answer".
Although "The question got no answer" is not the most natural way to express the idea in English, this direct translation of the Swedish is nevertheless grammatical, if we think of it as an active construction, rather than as a faulty passive construction. It is equivalent to "The question did not get an answer". In casual speaking, we can easily accept this statement, if we liken a question to a mailroom slot into which answers can be deposited like letters and messages. If an answer comes in for a question, then the question gets an answer. If no answer came, then the question got no answer.
True that! A more natural English eqivalent for this sentence would probably be "The question was not answered."
But I'd also say that this is probably one of those instances when we people of the discussion section spend too much time trying to develop elaborate philosophies that would hopefully make things more correct, when we know it's really best to let it be for the sake of simplicity and convenience in teaching a sentence:)
Perhaps a more grammatically correct answer for the English translation would be "The question received no answer"?
There's nothing wrong with the default translation ("The question got no answer."), but they're both accepted. :)
I'm a bit confused, why in the translation the negative is associated with the verb, I thought inget/ingen mean that you negate the object "the question got no answer"
You're not wrong. They relate like you think:
- frågan fick inget svar - the question got no answer
- frågan fick inte något svar - the question did not get an answer
I'm assuming it's for pedagogical purposes.
I just used "The question got no answer" and it was marked as correct, so I suppose they've added it now.
We haven't changed it, both were accepted all along, but I think Makie was confused about our choice of main translation, which should probably be changed into The question got no answer instead, so I'll try to change that now.
This one made no sense to me, I thought surely they don't say "got no" in Sweden.
The question "got no" answer, is so grammatically incorrect that it is used as a sarcastic joke poking fun at extreemly ignorant and usuallyl illiterate people. This is the first real mistake I've seen in this excellent program. At least thats how english is spoken here in California.
What do you find wrong about it? Just to be clear, it means "got" as in "received", not as in "has got".
"The question got no answer" ain't very good English. I can just barely imagine a context where that might be uttered, but I will have to add it to my list of Sentences I Am Unlikely To Ever Say.