"He hates vegetables, especially broccoli."
Translation:Is fuath leis glasraí, go háirithe brocailí.
broccolli brocoli broccoli brocolli brocaili broccailí.... Is fuath liom broc..col...brocol... meh...
in case anyone else was confused: "fuath" is a noun, so the phrase means literally, "there is hatred in him towards the vegetables" (where "leis" is the preposition "le" in its masculine form and combined with an article).
-> So the adverb in this Duolingo exercise must be "go háirithe".
leis in this exercise is a prepositional pronoun, it is not" le combined with an article" (le doesn't combine with an article, it changes to leis before an article).
It isn't accurate to say that this "literally means "there is hatred in him towards vegetables"". That's certainly one way to interpret it, but it is no more literal than "he hates vegetables", as there is no "there is", "in him", "towards" or "the" in is fuath leis glasraí.
This construction is part of a spectrum:
Is fuath/cuma/maith/breá/álainn/ansa le X Y - "X hates/doesn't care about/likes/really likes/really, really likes/cherishes Y". There are probably a few more that you can add to that list.
Regarding your comment on literal translation, I found the following explanation at http://nualeargais.ie/gnag/kopul5.htm#modal:
"adjectives with the copula and prepositions:
e.g. "Is maith liom fuisce a ól"
construction: Is + adj. + prep. + P + S
translation: I like to drink Whiskey
literal translation: Is good with me, Whiskey to drink"
So I think "is" = the verb "to be" in its present tense, acting as a copula, meaning the thingy that connects subject and predicate, where "predicate" means the thingy (in some languages, not necessarily a verb) that states something about the subject.
Going back to your comment, why do you think that "there is hatred in [or "with"] him" is not a more literal translation than "he hates"?
You're quoting a source that says Is maith liom is literally translated as "is good with me" and asking why Is fuath leis isn't literally "there is hatred in him"? Where's the "in"? Where's the "there"?
Following your suggested model, the "literal translation" is "is hatred with him broccoli". Personally, I find that less useful than the "literal meaning" - "he hates broccoli".
Ah, I see your point. I think I unconsciously added the "in" and "there" from a similar from a similar French construction ("il y a").
My point regarding "with" still stands though.
Regarding "literal": I think you may have misunderstood me. With a "literal" translation, one generally means word for word (following syntax), rather than meaning (expressing semantics). Which one is useful depends, of course, on purpose. One learner might find it helpful to look at the construction (focussing on syntax), in order to slowly gain an understanding of the language´s mechanisms for future application in other instances, whilst another learner might prefer to quickly learn a large number of phrases by heart (focussing on semantics), which he can then use in specific, prepared situations (probably without the ability to transfer knowledge to new situations).
No, I didn't misunderstand you. There is no way that your
With a "literal" translation, one generally means word for word
there is no way that "there is hatred in him towards the vegetables" can be considered a "literal" translation of is fuath leis glasraí (even ignoring the question of nouns versus adjectives, predicates vs subjects, etc).
By all means throw around makey-uppy "translations" that helped you "slowly gain an understanding of the language´s mechanisms", but don't label them "literal" when they aren't, in any sense of that word.
As for your point regarding "with", the only point that I can see regarding "with" is the erroneous statement in your first post:
(where "leis" is the preposition "le" in its masculine form and combined with an article)