1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Italian
  4. >
  5. "Loro non perdevano mai."

"Loro non perdevano mai."

Translation:They would never lose.

September 4, 2013

36 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Archangelica

"They never used to lose" Why is this wrong?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/pont

I've reported it too. In general, "used to" translations seem to get rejected a lot. Maybe it's not a common construction in the dialect of whoever created these lessons...


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/RomancePhilology

Used to should be rejected, because it expresses something very different from the imperfect tense.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Francesco817465

It's not. I'm critical of DL's habitual use of 'used to' but this is a case where 'used to' is a correct translation of the past imperfect.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Viaggiatore

I think it's the same.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Archangelica

Thanks. I think so too, I'll try reporting it! :)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/epac-mcl

It's not wrong. I wrote that and DL accepted it. 12/12/2014


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/RomancePhilology

“They never used to lose,” means that they suddenly started losing, which would be expressed in Italian as, “Prima non perdevano mai.”


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/redbrickhouse

It's a better translation, less ambiguous.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/divaluisa

Why isn't this conditional? They never lost. ???


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/errant1

I think it's because the imperfect can express habitually repeated actions, which could be translated into English as "We used to..." or "We would..." It's not meant to be a conditional "would".


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/robwalker2

How about "They did not lose ever"?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/redbrickhouse

Different verb tense. This is simple past. It's easier to see if you simplify to "They lost." Negation does not change the tense.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/gooley

what's wrong with, " they did not ever lose"


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/redbrickhouse

This is a different verb tense.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/tobithegreat

It's awkward in English. "Not ever" is almost never said. Normally one would say "never" unless you were trying to emphasis something. That said, "They didn't ever lose." sounds perfectly natural to me.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/roman2095

Yes, I think that you would normally say "never lost" but once you introduce the "did" you have to put either "didn't ever" or "did not ever". The latter would mainly be used to put the emphasis on the "not" in contradiction of an assertion that they did sometimes lose.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/roman2095

I think that is actually correct provided that you are talking about repeated or habitual events in the past.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/name971579

Why is the English translation "They never would lose"? Perdevano is indicative not subjunctive.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ElakVarg

"would" is sometimes used in the meaning of "used to".


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Baheap07

Why is this not the conditional. The translation doesn't sound like the past imperfect


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/PazzoForPizza

It's like saying, "as children, they would never eat broccoli" -- as in a habitual state that took place in the past. Hence the imperfect rather than the conditional.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/ElakVarg

Can it mean "they would never forgive"?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Nagatuk

The word would does not belong and is not a natural English phrase.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/RichardWil528737

I think you could say something like "When they played tennis, they would never lose." It would (!) probably be more usual to say "...they never lost", but I think the "would" form is quite natural.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/PazzoForPizza

In this case, the would is not conditional. It describes something that "would never happen" in the past.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/NONAPAOLA

Why not simply 'They never lose.'


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/PazzoForPizza

Because it's a past tense, indicating a habitual situation in the past.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/KateMcCabe4

This is not the translation shown in the exercise. It shows the translation as "They were never losing"


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/MariaIramendy

Up-to-now I continue being confuse with the use of the Italian imperfect. It is translated in English as: simple past, continuous past, conditional and used to. What is the rule and what is the correct way to express the ideas in English?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/P-Fogg

Why is 'They were never lost' wrong'?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Anthony659225

Passive vs. active: The game WAS LOST by the players. THE PLAYERS LOST the game. The sentence given in Italian is active not passive.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jaye16

"to be lost" is not passive when referring to a person "not knowing the way, not being able to find his way somewhere." "The child was lost in the woods." does not mean someone lost the child the way you'd lose your keys.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Duomail

That "lost" is an adjective, not a verbal form.

Lost: Unable to find one's way. A lost child. A child was lost.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/jaye16

P-Fogg I had the same thing. Did you report it? I did.

Learn Italian in just 5 minutes a day. For free.