"You, do not eat more rice."
Translation:Tú no comas más arroz.
When i read this, i heard the voice of some harsh dictator who just goes around telling his people what quantities of food are acceptable to eat. Since i figured these people are most likely strangers, and also because friends typically don't address each other as "you," I put "Usted, no coma más arroz" but was marked incorrect.
I was going to report it, but i thought i'd check here first. Am i missing something?
That should indeed have counted. As should "Ustedes, no coman más arroz" and "Vosotros, no comáis más arroz".
I doubt that a harsh dictator that ran around telling people what to eat would bother to call them usted since it's a sign of respect. He would see himself above everyone and say tú to everyone.
In reality, it seem anyone would says this to anyone but a small child, if to anyone at all.
i don't even begin to understand this section. why is it not "tu no comes mas arroz"? why "comas" instead of "comes"? it doesn't explain the difference. (that goes for the rest of this section too)
"No comes mas arroz" is an observation that you are not eating more rice, while "No comas mas arroz" is an order, telling you not to eat more rice.
With the comma after the "you", this is a direct address, and also an imperative, and incidentally a negative imperative. In Spanish, negative imperatives change endings: -ar verbs change to -er endings, and -er/-ir verbs change to -ar endings.
I wrote "usted no coma mas arroz" but i was told i needdx to pluralize it to make it "usted no coman mas arroz" but i know that is incorrect
Well, most people don't give orders to people they respect and don't know well. So using usted would be strange, right? If plural, this would be "ustedes, no coman más arroz."
I do not seem to understand imperative. Why doesn't this use "come" if that is the second person imperative?
I must be missing something. I still dont see why "usted, no coman" is correct. A singular pronoun with a plural verb?
The subject pronoun always has to match the conjugation of the verb. This may be less obvious a contradiction with direct address, if, say you are talking to a group leader, and telling him his group needs to stop eating the rice. But if you're talking to the leader about the group, then it's no longer imperative. The only way for it to be an imperative/command to the group is to address the group, which would use Ustedes. Does that make any sense?
No, because twice I used "Usted, no coma más arroz" and was told it should be "Usted, no coman más arroz." That's what isn't making sense to me.
Apologies, I misread your question. That is equally puzzling to me - probably a mistake. Did you report it?
No, I may go back and see if it does it again. If it does, I'll take a screen shot and submit it.
"Usted, no coma mas arroz" was flagged as incorrect. Wis which is wrong
"no comas" implies "tu", so no pronoun needed. No one I know would ever add the pronoun in this case.. Every other form of this negative imperative would be: "no coma" (usted), "no comais" (vosotros), "no coman" (ustedes) and "no comás" (vos - RPL). So versions without pronoun should be accepted.
Because you addressed the interlocutor with "tú", yet you conjugated the verb with the usted, not tú, form. The latter would be "comas".
Oh, thanks a lot, I see now, that's really my stupid mistake! Thank you!
I assumed it was about one person so I put usted and coma. That should have been correct!
I have climbed the tree all this way and never seen "coma" what is the "a" doing?
This is a negative imperative, which uses the subjunctive form. So, -ar verbs use -er endings, and -er/-ir verbs use -ar endings
Si, estoy de acuedo contigo charlie_murphay. Yo escribí lo mismo que usted y fue marcado incorrectamente.
Why does ustead not count in place of tú? Is there something inhearently informal about this sentence?