"No son meses, sino años."
I believe it is they are not months. I think son is only used for more than one.
Why "it is" if the word "son" is used? I thought that conjugation was used for plural objects and people
I guess their idea is that "it is" would be more commonly used than "they are" in English, however, "they are" can also be used, so I argue it should also be correct
I would use "they are" in English for plural, so I think the correct translation should be "they are"
Clearly, the correct translation should be "They are not months...". How can "No son..." be translated "It isn't..."?
despite it being plural in spanish, it makes no sense to do that in english. The 'it is' refers to a timeframe (which is singular). It's unlikely to use this phrase in present tense, but sounds fine in future tense. eg "it will be years, not months, before the job is finished".
I can't think of any context in which "they are not months, but years" would be meaningful.
Really? "1947, 2013, and 1492: they are not months, but years." There you go. A perfectly grammatical, meaningful English sentence. (Unless you live in Duolingo land.)
Other translations which satisfy should be accepted. Duolingo needs to be less rigid.
I tried "It is years, not months" and apparently it is about the literal translations.
On this question. On the next Duolingo question, it won't be, and you'll have to guess which non-literal translation they want.
I thought "not in months, but years" was the answer. Like we will be finished in months not years. Like this course, right.?
What is this phrase supposed to mean? I tried to translate "Not months but years" and it was not accepted.
When you see a negative followed by "sino," put on your seatbelt. Translated into English, it is always a weird, bumpy construction which we rarely use. "They are not months, but years" sounds like the beginning of a boring novel.
I believe that "son" has an implied "they" because months is plural. Someone chime in but it would be "it" with es/está if singular.