"Somos once personas."
Translation:We are eleven people.
From Turkish perspective, "we are eleven people" explains spanish counterpart very well because we also use it like that in Turkish. For that reason, (if there are other languages like this) it is a better way to explain the idea globally. And i guess it also doesnt offend our english friends in terms of grammar. Lastly, just for the records, "spanish-turkish" doesnt exist in DL now, 21.05.2016
I put, we are eleven persons, this was marked wrong. This is what we say in Canada all the time when entering a restaurant.
It isn't common American English but it is English and it is grammatically correct. I couldn't think of a context but I did a quick search and found this.
"We are eleven people living here (along with our beloved cat, Esme) and each one of us adds to the flavor of the house."
Now you have an idea of the context in English.
I completely agree that this is a correct translation. However, there seem to be many cases where Duo wants us to "naturalize" our answers when they result in awkward literal translations, and for American English speakers "There are eleven of us" is far more natural than "We are eleven people." I can't think of a single instance off the top of my head where these two phrases have a different meaning in English, except maybe if an object/animal is speaking that doesn't consider itself a "person."
Both answers should be accepted.
Maybe not, but it is standard Spanish. It is grammatically correct in English as well, so the translation is correct, even if it wouldn't be common spoken language (non standard doesn't in itself equal wrong, as some others have sometimes suggested).
In both languages there are words and "ideas" that sometimes get omitted — like in [somos | we are] the "stand alone word" for we [nosotros] has been omitted, as we don't need to say [we we are] unless we're emphasizing it as opposed to something else/ some other group [We are not ready — We (us), WE are].
It does help to think about this particular sentence, and others alike, as a concept of "Express what is necessary/enough — Leave out the obvious/extra clutter". Kinda like: "speak efficiently, get more said"; I love it, though personally I'm not too good at it. ;)
• We are [a/the group - of] eleven people.
• Somos [un/el grupo - de] once personas.
~ [group | grupo] is omitted, as [we are] already expresses it — for the majority of the population there is no need to suspect they would only be talking about themselves (and the rest of their ten personalities).
~ [of | de] gets omitted, as it cannot really stand there alone without the above — [a group of…] is the expression describing those "who are". This group consists of eleven (different) people. They're not "of" eleven people, which would have more of a horror-movie-like ring to it. :D
I worked for years in restaurants as well as catering. I have heard people say "We are [number] people" many times. "There are [number] of us" is said more often. Being more common doesn't make it more correct though.
Think of it like this: When is the last time you heard someone say "one should not drive when one is intoxicated"? It's likely been a while if ever. Regardless, that sentence is not only correct but more correct than saying "you shouldn't drink and drive' for numerous reasons, including using the word "you" when not speaking of the specific person to whom you are (one is) speaking.
In addition, there is a difference between what is "natural" to many Americans, and what is good English.
Lot's of American say "ain't" -- That's natural, but not good, standard English.
Many Americans say "Me (and my friend) went to the mall." That's natural, but not good, standard English.
I have known/ heard Americans who say "mother***" in every sentence. That is natural to them, but not appropriate.
Some Americans refer to "***hole countries." That may be natural, but is not appropriate to say.
People learning English want to learn the English of educated people -- the standard English necessary to get a good job, and to write well.
That's if you are speaking fluently :-) That would be nice. But first one has to be able to hear and understand a bit. For English, that requires recognizing the sound of "I gotta doit - I mean WE hafta doit". For any language, it means knowing what words are rude in which countries. Good thing we usually get major bonus points just for trying.
I said "persons" also. Basically, "persons" is OK here, especially in formal speech, but "people" is preferred.
This article discusses the distinction. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/people-vs-persons
I had never heard of that rule before. I found this article that mentions it: http://grammarist.com/usage/people-persons/
Whenever I hear about "old rules", I think of the rule-happy Victorians with their edicts against split infinitives and sentences ending with prepositions. . http://wordtree.com/what-the-victorians-did-to-english-grammar/ I wonder if this persons thing is yet another one of their rules that some teachers still cling to.
Wow! Thanks, Barbara. That was quite an eye-opener! I read both the articles and was actually a little shocked to see the word 'ancient' spelled 'antient' and 's' replaced by the integration symbol. But the rule I mentioned was taught to me as a kid, so I'm not sure if I have the text to back it right now. Because I do not work with huge chunks of words and long essays on a daily basis, I'm not able to keep track of changes in rules of sentence formation, although I follow newly coined words/ terms relatively better. I think I have a bad case of "Grammar Grandpa Syndrome". :) Thanks again, Barbara.