"Vieles sieht man nicht."
"much is not seen" is very poetic English. No-one would say that in conversation.
That's not really what the sentence means. It means "one doesn't see much" with emphasis on the much. "You don't see much around here" is a sentence I'm sure you'd hear in English.
Look at this, in multiple choice:
Correct translations:•Much is invisible.
•Much is not seen.
You missed 1 correct translation!
I know they mean the same, but having into mind that "invisible" has a different word directly translatable "unsichtbar", I think it shouldn't be included as a valid translation in an exercise. Otherwise, many others should be included too. Somebody's reporting, "a lot of things are not seen" was not accepted in a translation writing exercise, while "lots of things...", instead, is accepted.
Correction: as HappyTrees89 says below this, they even don't mean the same. I come back to here to add definitions. Websters International's:
1. impossible to see: not able to be seen with the eyes
2. hidden: hidden from view
3. made transparent magically: impossible to see as a result of magic or pseudoscientific processes
4. not easily noticed: not readily noticed or detected
5. unrecorded statistically: not reflected, recorded, or reported in economic statistics invisible earnings
Other sources http://m-w.com/dictionary/invisible
for Internet slang, psychology. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/invisible
I don't really think "invisible" and "not seen" are the same thing. The back of my head is "not seen" right now because nobody is looking at it (for me, it is hidden behind my eyes where I can't see it without mirrors, etc, and for everyone else, it is hidden behind the walls and door of the room I'm in), but it is not "invisible" because it DOES reflect light waves in the visible spectrum. Thus, the set of all "invisible" things is only a subset of all things that are "not seen" and the two terms should not be used interchangeably.
That being said, I agree that "invisible" should not be included as a valid translation in this exercise.
I put "a lot you don't see", and the duolingo translation was "lots you don't see". Surprised to get that wrong! why is there a difference between "lots" and "a lot"?
How about "You can't see much"? Seems most idiomatic to me but maybe that is just my dialect.
"We don't see much" doesn't make any sense. Where did the "we" come from? Sieht is not conjugated for we, it's he/she/it sees, right?
Yeah, I think that's just wrong unless you were to wrap a quite explicit context around it. Formally it is "One can't see much" or colloquially "You can't see much."
WTF is that!!???? no sense please!! make an effort and build normal sentences for this program please...many people is trying to learn!!
it told me a correct answer was "Many things's not seen."
"Many things not seen." was incorrect Things's is new to me. Who knows maybe next week it I will learn's me some w things or is it new thing's or is it new things's's or new things's's's.
I had no idea how to translate this one, so i skipped and what I saw as a solution was "Much is invisible" ?? It's out of context and doesn't sound good in my opinion..
That is not grammatical English. "One" in English is singular, therefore "One does ..." "I do" "he/she/it/one does" "we do" "you-all do" "they do"
I would say the German sentence in this form is not translatable into meaningful English.' No one sees much' is about the best I can do, but it is not grammatical. You still need to know what you cannot see much of, a football match, or a film for example for the sentence to make sense.