"Nunca seremos amigos."
Translation:We will never be friends.
I don't think it's so much that your version is wrong, but that Duo's is a better translation. "Never will we be friends" is a quite awkward way to express that sentiment, even if it is - technically - valid English grammar.
"Never will" and "will never" are equal and used interchangeably in English and I suspect it is the same for Spanish. Perhaps we are making a problem where none exists.
We never will be friends, why is that wrong. We say that all the time in Canada.
Yes. Of the four grammatically correct possibilities, We will be er and we never will probably make up 95% of the occurrences. It would be hard to say for sure which would be more common. Never will be friends would be much less common, but not unheard. We will be friends never is also correct but not natural and would probably only be used for ironic emphasis.
I agree 100%. If we are to learn correct Spanish then we must get into our bones the proper Spanish word order. Which means that 'Never will we be friends' is the right word order since, presumably, it is incorrect Spanish to say 'Seremos Nunca amigos'
But actually the fact that the syntax is different is exactly the reason why the normal syntax of one language should be translated into the normal syntax of the other. If someone learns that Never will we be friends is the correct translation for Nunca seremos amigos, It does not make it clear that it is also the translation for the more common English We never will be friends. The best way to underline the differences in syntax is to show the standard syntax in both. English syntax in this case is more flexible, so you can tranșlate directly from the Spanish syntax, but you can't the other way around. For English native speakers, the options for the English are obvious, but their goal is to learn how to say what they want to say with a similar impact.
I suppose it all boils down to one's opinion. But in the DL module I am working through at the moment there is the phrase 'Lo haré' direct translation 'It I will do' also there is 'Lo voy a permitir' i.e. 'It I am going to allow'. This is how I learn these phrases and this translation should be allowed by Duolingo as being 'literally' correct since this is the grammatically correct construction. Otherwise we will all end up in a mad world of mentally translating spoken Spanish to English and back to spoken Spanish over and again.
Learning Spanish shouldn't require you to speak English incorrectly. When you jump that gap to thinking on Spanish it may affect your English syntax some, but the goal is for it not to. You are imposing the personality of Spanish on English. Honoring the personality of each language is the only way to truly learn it.
In English, adverbs of 'frequency' (e.g. never) come directly before the main verb. If 'be' is the main verb and there is no auxiliary verb, adverbs of frequency are put behind 'be'. Is there an auxiliary verb, however, adverbs of frequency are put directly before 'be'. : http://faculty.washington.edu/marynell/grammar/AdverbPl.html
So in your example, technically the adverb has the wrong placement I think -- but it is pretty much a technicality, since the essence of the sentence is still there and nothing is really lost.
Language is always evolving, and adverb placement tends be loose, since you use that placement to add or move the emphasis of the meaning behind the sentence. Anyways...language!
Anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I'm relearning all the nuances of English as I continue to learn Spanish!
Is there a future tense that would convey "we shall never be friends?" Duo marks this as an incorrect translation (I just thought I'd try it) but it left me wondering whether there's a way to express that en espanol.
There are few Americans who have any real knowlege of the proper use of shall. Should is more common. Shall is still used to make a suggestion at times, but it has somewhat of a highbrow sound sometimes. Shall is still used in legal contracts and the like. But it is virtually never used in common speech for first person future. It is certainly correct, but few Americans would even think to include it.
Thanks for taking the time to reply to my question, but I think maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to ask. I wasn't wondering about its use in American English, but in Spanish.
Why wasn't "We won't ever be friends." accepted? Makes no sense that it wouldn't be.
I was marked wrong for 'Never will we be friends', which albeit is a bit theatrical; but then, I come from a family of performers.
We never will be friends is perfectly acceptable. It serves to stress the unlikeliness of a future friendship.
Yes. English is extremely flexible with the placement of these words. Never will we be friends; We never will be friends; and We will never be friends are all acceptable. If you substitute always for never, it makes the first option sound more awkward but for some reason makes We will be friends always possible when we will be friends never sounds strange.
"We will never become friends" was not accepted. Could you please correct me if I am wrong.
Seremos is the future tense of "to be." To become friends is a different verb: hacerse amigos The future tense would be "nos haremos amigos."
I wrote "We never will be friends" and it was marked wrong. I don't get it.
"I will always / hate Syracuse. We will never be friends." --Kirsten Kaschock ;P
I disagree with JGarrick62 in that it might normally seem awkward but this structure could be used when emphasis is required....NEVER, will we be friends.
As a translation, <We SHALL never be friends> is grammatically more correct in English than <We WILL never be friends>.
Even if you accept that old rule, you cannot say definitively that it shall is a better choice because, as always, we have no context here. The rule says that while the first person singular and plural normally use shall while the other person's use will, if you are expressing special determination those rules are reversed. How much determination is meant here? But the standard here is American English. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, both words are used interchangeably in both British and American English, but shall is not used in any normal context in American English. In fact, except for quoting old sources like the Gettysburg Address (which uses the special determination rule), or singing We shall overcome, the only time most people ever hear shall used here is basically as the invitational "Shall we?", but even that I associate with people older than me (and I am in my 60s). I don't know if I was even taught that in school.
While probably not quite there yet, saying that shall is the more grammatically correct choice here is fast becoming like saying that the correct grammatical choice for the parent addressing their child should be Thou art grounded! Rule, like everything else, change over time.
Nunca is a negative command, so it does require the subjunctive form.
Nunca digas nunca
I had to look this up to be 100% sure myself.
When I went to school we said "shall" but I'll try to remember to use "will" when speaking Spanish.
why not: we never will be friends. I have to give up my friendship with Duoling
I wrote "We never will be friends"....Is DL correct in marking that wrong?
"Will" implies a determination not to be friends. "Shall" is correct.
Actually we don't know which one would be classically correct, since the word nunca can suggest just such determination. But my guess is that you are either at least as old or older than I am (64) or British. Shall, as mentioned in this article, is pretty much an obsolete word in the US. There are cultural vestiges still like in songs (We Shall Overcome, or Shall We Dance from the King and I) and in the lone invitation expression Shall we? Even the latter I don't believe my kids would think to use much. So from the perspective of descriptive Linguistics, the rule in no longer valid here. Actually, since unlike Spanish French and German, English doesn't have a "ruling body" to weigh in on a revision of the language, a descriptive approach to grammar only makes sense.
Shall/will do still maintain some legal significance in contracts in the US, but it is among the most misundersood/misused word in the legal profession
"We will never be friends" is exactly what I entered. Marked incorrect. The translation noted as correct read "We'll never be friends" which is simply a contraction of "We will never be friends". What is going on here?
Yes. Shall has almost completely disappeared from the American vocabulary, although it exists in significant cultural remnants like protest songs (We shall overcome We shall not be moved) and of course the Gettysburg address. I am 64. I remember I somehow learned the rules about using shall instead of will for first person singular and plural to form the future, but reversing that to show great determination, but it was never something I was told to do. I have no idea if my children who are in their thirties even learned it at all. If Duo would only fix their algorithm so that it doesn't necessarily show any accepted answer as a correction, I would say report it. But the problem is that people focus on the unusual elements of the correction as the whole correction. A while back there was some sort of glitch in the exercise Un hombre, una mujer where they were marking correct answers wrong or people had typo men or women instead of man and woman. They had apparently also recently accepted chap as a translation for hombre. I don't know how many times I answered a query about what chap meant. That one actually surprised me quite a bit. Every single bad parody of the British I have ever seen simply involved throwing a few cheerio chaps into the dialog in a bad British accent. But the technical aspects seem to be beyond Duo, especially at this price point.