I'd like to just say, "col" is a bit archaic; it's what you see in literature. Modern usage is "con il."
Why the hell Duolingo uses archaic words? My wife also said that I should use "con il"
If you look into the background of Duo's existence you'll find that they are using mass learning for free to translate the Internet. They give us sentence extracts from pages on the web. This must have been taken from archaic text. Best thing to do is report it.
So did I, and I asked my husband to listen, too, and he also said "con sale".
On what concifuriram has already said: Is it true that, as archaic as it is, col in specific is still used, but the other forms, like colla (con + la), are abandoned? And if so, are "con il" / "col" interchangeable, or is "con il" just wrong please?
all the basic prepositions except tra, fra, per and con have to be combined with an article placed next to them. exception: "con il" and "col" are interchangeable.
Can you please clarify why there even needs to be an article in front of "sale" when the correct answer translation doesn't say "THE salt"? I understand the voice says "col", but why then doesn't "the" translate?
I think that because it is a different language, it can express ideas differently; not every word need be translated word-for-word.
This is confusing....I had my own little rule that col was used when "with the" was needed and con sufficed for "with". Now they use "col sale" and give you the translation of "I cook fish with salt".....not: "I cook fish with the salt", so I have to wonder why the "col" instead of just "con"?
I didn't hear "col" at all. It didn't occur to me that there had to be an article with "sale," which is used in a general way here. One does not always need the article, right? Don't we see "le donne mangiano pane" frequently? Can someone give me a rule?
would be nice if there were an explanation of col. is it the same as con but for masculine nouns or something?
they should put something like : "con+il = col" at the top of dictionary hints
The only reason 'con il' is not accepted on the exercise I did is because you have to write exactly what the voice says...
I don't understand when and when not to put 'il' or 'la' before a sentence. Here, this could be i cook fish, or I cook the fish... Could anyone clarify?
I know elision is common for some prepositions, but I thought con and per were no longer elided in usual conversation.
"per" is no longer elided but some forms of "con" still are (col and coi), but they are not common. (they're mostly used in written language)
Here is an interesting article about combining the preposition "con" with articles. http://dizionari.corriere.it/dizionario-si-dice/C/con-lo-collo.shtml
why would it be wrong to use "con" it is used more often then "col" . yes I agree with BethK I also hear "con sale" .
I'm wondering what the past tense of 'cucino' is. Can anybody tell me, please? I mean, for whatever reason I put "I cooked fish with salt" and I got that wrong, which was a bit understandable. I'm not sure if I have forgotten the past tense or perhaps I've not learned it yet.
cucinare cucino, cucini, cucina avere , ho, hai, ha + PP cucinato
cucinavo, - vi, -va
cucinerei, - esti, -ebbe,-emmo, -este, - -ebbero
cuocere cuocio, cuoci, cuoce, cuociamo, cuocete, cuociono (noun, male cuoco)
PP cotto avere , ho, hai, ha, abbiamo, avete, hanno + cotto
cuocevo, vi , va, -vamo, -vate, -vano
cuocerei, -esti, -ebbe, -emmo, -este, -ebbero
Can someone please explain why my answer of "I cook the fish with salt" incorrect? Thank you
From my understanding "con" just means "with" and "col" is a contraction of "con" and "il". I'm pretty sure you always need an article before a noun in Italian but not in English https://www.duolingo.com/comment/81854/Con-and-Col
Col is like saying with the. Con is just with. However, col is a slightly more archaic term and nowadays it's more common to just say Con il.
I personally think using archaic words is cool. But then again if it were up to me we'd all be speaking Latin. ;-)