"We eat ourselves on the floor."!?
Is this a mistake or a genuine correct answer?
That must have been a mistake. The correct translation is there now.. "We sit on the floor".
Now. It should be "We seat ourselves onto/on the floor". Can never use "sit", but "sit down" to be the action is ok.
"Setzen" literally means "seat", the action to sit down. "Sitzen" means "sit", the state that you're sitting.
It marked it as a typo, giving you the "almost correct" result. An acceptable, 100% correct answer is "we seat ourselves on the floor". See? One letter off. :)
It just told me that the correct answer was, we are sitting down on the story...I know that isn't right.
I wrote "onto" instead of "on" since "den Boden" is in accusative form, but it wasn't accepted. Why?
Because "onto" implies moving from one place onto another, but when you sit on the floor, you're already standing on it. So "We stepped onto the floor" [from someplace else] but not "we seated ourselves onto the floor.
Also, as I think about it, it's always "sit on." I think this is because you're sitting on top of something. You can jump onto, climb onto, step onto... but not sit onto.
That's wrong. "Setzen" means sit down, it's already moving from one place onto another. It doesn't mean just sitting.
Duolingo's answer seems incorrect to me. Please clarify.
This should be "we sit on the floor" which describes an transitive action (from standing to sitting) not a unchanging situation ( we are sitting on the floor) which would be "wir sitzen auf dem Boden".
Confusion between sich setzen and sitzen. The given English translation also sounds unnatural whatever it's trying to say.
There's a banner asking users not to report mistakes here. Where should we report them, then? I'm tired of the report a problem button. There's never been any feedback to anything I put there. So I may as well waste my time describing a problem here. At least other users may react to it.
The answer is perfectly right.
sich setzen - to sit down from a standing position sitzen - to sit and continuing to do so.
And that is exactly what has been expressed here - "We sit on the floor" is just as easily capable of expressing the unchanging situation as the progressive, Ihave never seen it take a transitive meaning anywhere - is it maybe a regional variation?
The problem is to make the function of the object clear - we have an accusative object here, while "Wir sitzen auf dem Boden" (expressing we are sitting there right now) would have made the ground a dative object, and given German can be somewhat complicated with it's objects, the distinction has to be made between those to - hence "sit down" instead of "sit."
I have had numerous reactions to reports so far - mostly about Duolingo accepting translations I suggested. (I am a native German and tried out this course A for the lingots, which I then shamelessly use for other languages, and B to check it out for a British friend who wants to learn German) Sadly my Thunderbird auto-deletes e-mails in the trash older than date x, so I can't check how long after reporting the reaction happened, but maybe it just takes time to sift through the reports?
Hi kitty, Thx for ur response. I'm not sure u hv resolved anything tho.
"Wir setzen uns auf den Boden" is the German sentence to be translated. The use of Akkusativ as in "den Boden" implies movement, no? (akk:wohin? Dativ:wo?), the act of sitting down. Perhaps my use of the term transitive is wrong but what I mean is movement, a change of state.
My complaint is that duolingo marked my answer (We sit on the floor) as wrong and claimed the German sentence to mean "we are sitting on the floor", using the continuous form which does not imply the action of sitting down, only the ongoing process of sitting.
In which case the dative form would be correct. (Wo sind wir? Auf dem Boden) which is not the case used in the original sentence.
The translation given by duolingo is therefore not the equivalent of the German sentence.
I translate sich setzen to mean the active process to sitting down on something, and sitzen as the passive process of being seated.
Your given translation was not "We are sitting down on the floor/We sit down on the floor" but "We sit on the floor"? As the former is what was given here above the discussion, it's what I assumed, which is apparently where our misunderstanding comes from.
"We sit on the floor" and "We are sitting on the floor" would both be wrong translations here for the exact reason you speak off - they describe the wrong action.
What you say grammarwise, dative and accusative, is completely right as well.
Hi Kitty, thank you for your beatiful explanation. I must say I was with you until now.
I see that you differentiate between sit and sit down, that is definitively correct. But.
I think that, "sitting" and "sit" by themselves, can also refer to the action of sitting down sometimes. Am I right?
I am not a native English speaker though.
My instinct says "no", but for full disclosure: I am not a native speaker either, though I speak more English than German at times.
They're both right. I'm not sure, but the reflexive in some of these cases seems to be a slightly pretentious way of saying things. The simple transitive form of this sentence is "We sit on the floor". The reflexive is "We seat ourselves on the floor". Same meaning, slightly different flavour. Personally, I think this is a silly way to teach language students reflexive, learning more pretentious-sounding versions of things we already know how to say in plainer language, but hey, it's how they choose to do it. I can either tolerate it or give up, and I'd prefer not to do the latter.
"take our seat" -- I suppose the "our" is too much interpolation. But it sounds more natural to me. I translate the sentence more or less automatically without tworrying about what answer duo is looking for. :)
Spontaneously, as a German native, I'd use "boden" inside of structures, while outside I'd be specific on the type of ground. "Ich setze mich in das Gras" - I sit down in the grass - "Ich setze mich auf den Bordstein" - I sit down on the curb, that sort of thing. There is, theoretically, "Grund", which is the direct equivalent to ground, but it's barely ever used. Boden is definitely evocative of the inside to me, and also to my boyfriend (whom I spontaneously polled)
I wrote "we are sitting down on the floor" and its saying its wrong, then gives the exact same as the answer
Duo says the correct answer is "We sit on the story". My answer, that duos says is incorrect "We sit on the bottom". It's right? "Boden" means "story", not "bottom"?
English does not require "down" in this meaning. "We are sitting on the floor" can mean either 1) We are in the process of sitting or 2) We are seated. What is meant is generally clear from context. Many British speakers will say "We sat down" but just as many would omit "down". I tend to use "I am sitting" for motion and "I am seated" for position. Of course, "I am seated" can also mean "I am shown to/led to a seat" - but context is everything.
Additional thought: "down" does not necessarily imply movement. "Where is he? He's down in the cellar". "Where has he gone? Down into the cellar". The prepositions in and into here give the static and mobile flavour required.