"He eats bread."
Translation:Lui mangia il pane.
59 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Almost everything in every other language has an article attached to it in some shape or fashion that is used to describe what is going on in the sentence. 99% of the time, you will always include the article no matter what. "He eats some bread" will still have some conjugation of "the" mixed in there. I know in French it would be "du pain" even though it is technically "de le pain". It's just a rule that we have to follow. So, to answer your question. You pretty much always, 99.999% of the time, have to use an article that matches gender and number of the name.
This reply is definitely not correct. How do you differ in Italian language between "He eats bread" and "He eats the bread", a bread which is specified. In German "Er isst Brot", bread in general and "Er isst das Brot", a specified piece of bread? In Hebrew:
הוא אוכל לחם and הוא אוכל את הלחם
and in many other languages
652
He eats sugar has no article but he eats bread requires the article. I am strughling to know why.
To be clear, this phrase, 'Mangia il pane' doesn't identify that it's "He" who is eating the bread. It could be a "She". But it can ONLY be referring to one person at a time performing the act of eating bread in the present tense.
Lui mangia il pane. = He eats the bread, could also be read as, He is eating the bread.
Lei mangia il pane. = She eats the bread, could also be read as, She is eating the bread.
'Mangia il pane' relies on the context it's used in to know if it's referring to a male or female performing the present act of eating bread.
Mangia = lui/lei mangia (3rd pers. tempo presente) he/she/it eats;
Mangio = io mangio (1st pers. tempo presente) I eat
84
when i tapped the word for a translation it said lui mangi. i did it like that and it wasted me a heart and said that it wasnt lui mangi but lui mangia!
880
The questionable statistics aside, in this very same exercise s correct answer was la ragazza mangia zucchero - no definite article. The use of the definite article based on opposing examples points to an arbitrary application of some vague rule, if such a rule even exists. The issue is not that my answer was wrong, but why the definite article here.