Translation:Shall we go together?
"We will go together?" or "Will we go together?" are both wrong because they are examples of future-tense constructions. The reason this sentence sounds funny to English speakers when translated directly ("We go together?") is because Duolingo is forced to stay in the present tense at this point in the lesson tree.
Everyone is saying that the English translation is wrong because it is future with 'will' and the Spanish sentence is in the 'present' tense, but often the present tense implies future actions, eg. 'Vamos juntos mañana?' So is it then correct to have the 'will' in the translation? I am going by my intuition of Italian here, so I may be wrong, but I would by all means happily translate 'Andiamo insieme?' as 'Are we going to/Will we go together?'. I have never said 'Shall we go together' without mockery in my life, but have always said 'Are we gonna go together' instead. Or at least 'Will we be/Are we going together?' to sound less casual.
Spanish is a language that uses the present with the future.
Monday's Spanish Lesson - Spanish With Paul: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKcUX0UhNu4W0yZ3BLFuMFavmEpLg1VUU
I was surprised to see "shall" as part of the sentence. My friends and I do still use "Shall we go together" in our conversations. Sometimes you get a smart alec answer like "Yes, we shalst".
I see "shall" as present or future tense though "Shall we go together to the movies on Saturday?".
For the record I translated this as "We go together" thinking of it as we go together like bread and butter.
Well, actually, "Vamos" can be translated "We go", "We do go", and "We are going" so this sentence could be translated "We go together?", "Do we go together?", and "Are we going together?" When you have a question, you just put the helping verb (are/do) before the actual verb (go in this case).
As I understand, "vamos" is often translated into English as "let's"; that is, it's not always translated as a future construction ("We're going to ...") . So, for me, the interrogative form of "let's" would be "Shall we ... ?" As often discussed in the duolingo comments, a lot depends on context. For me, the best way to translate this as a stand alone sentence is "Shall we go together?" -- though, with a friend, I would probably say "Wanna go together?" -- I rejected this here as drifting too far away from the actual words in Spanish. Translating is a tricky business.
Not really. "Vamonos" is a better way to say "let's go." "Vamos" is more like "we go." In this particular sentence, I think the best translation, in current usage and without being idiomatic, is "should we go together?" Think about it like we're planning whether to take separate cars or not. "Shall" seems to have fallen out of favor in modern English, in fact Merriam-Webster lists most definitions of "shall" as archaic.
I agree about "Let's go" ... but that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to vamos in a construction of Vamos a [infintive verb].
Example "Let's watch TV" = Vamos a mirar televisión. We often (not always) translate "vamos", in these cases, as "Let's [do something]" rather than "We're going to [do something]". And I bring it up here because, in this case, vamos is used in a question, rather than an imperative. So, I ask myself, what is the question form of "Let's"?
If the statement form were simply "we go" , the question form would be (in English), "Are we going?" or "Do we go?". So I guess, perhaps, that the question in this exercise example could be translated as "Do we go together?" or "Are we going together?", but, still, that doesn't (in my mind) have the same sense of invitation, of asking for agreement. So, this is another example in DL where it is difficult to say, lacking a context. I interpret this exercise example as an invitation.
And while I agree that "shall" is increasingly falling out of usage (and acknowledged that above when I said: with a friend, I would probably say "Wanna go together?"), I don't think that "should" is a good replacement because, rather than an invitation (or, perhaps, a directive) by the speaker, it suggests some kind of external imperative/authority (not necessarily a person, but possibly arising out of the circumstance). For translating "should" into Spanish, I usually use a form of deber (which can also be translated as "must" or "have to" among others).
I understand now what you mean about "vamos a." Your first comment is correct, the interrogative form of "let us" is "should(shall) we." It should also be noted that "should" is a direct synonym for "shall" according to Merriam-Webster. I agree that simple sentences like this lacking context are difficult to translate using the proper tense. That's why I gave the example of taking separate cars. I think we both misunderstood what each other was saying. The point of this conversation is to find the best English translation without being idiomatic right? I still say that "Should we go together?" fits that bill. Maybe Canadians have less affinity for "should" than we Americans do. Personally I use "should we" all the time.
Realizing that we have probably over-stayed our welcome on this topic, I still felt compelled to investigate how my understanding of "should" could differ so much from Merriam-Webster.
One interesting factoid is that "should" can be the past of "shall". I had no idea.
Anyway, this is what I found in terms of definitions:
It seems that definition #5 of M-W relates most to the usage we're discussing: —used in auxiliary function to express a request in a polite manner or to soften direct statement <I should suggest that a guide…is the first essential — L. D. Reddick>
I don't doubt that you use "should" for invitations/requests. And I know that I can't speak for all Canadians (most of whom don't consider greater Vancouver to really be part of Canada).
It seems that there are issues both of context and of usage preference. Which is what you said. :-)
About DL and this example exercise: I think various ways of expressing a request/invitation should be accepted. But I do not think that "will" fits because that would be asking about a fact yet to happen (rather than a request) and I don't believe that is the meaning here.
"...we have probably over-stayed our welcome on this topic..."
On the contrary, I often learn as much or more from reading the discussions as I do from the exercises. This one has been very informative.
Actually, it seems it's MY understanding of should that differs from Merriam-Webster. Both MacMillan and Oxford list my usage as the first definition, while Merriam-Webster seems content to leave that usage to shall.
it must be so hard for non native speakers, as the order of words in english are so crucial, for meaning - ...we shall! ...shall we?
My answer, "Are we going together?" was accepted. When used as a statement, "Vamos juntos" translates "We are going together." By simply adding the ? and using the correct intonation, the statement becomes a question - "Are we going together?"
SpanishDict.com agrees with Duolingo for "Shall we go together?" and "Are we going together?" -----> ¿Vamos juntos?
It's a question, rather than a statement, so we're looking for the natural way to express the question in English.
Copying from my comment elsewhere:
"shall" is used in the present for asking agreement/permission to do something. "Will" does not work in these situations. "Shall I make us some tea?" "Shall we dance?" As the question version of "let's" ... And, I guess, for emphatic situations -- I'm thinking of the famous line from the Lord of the Rings movie: "You shall not pass!"
Also, although dying out (at least in North America) "shall" can be the first person singular and the first person plural of the future tense. (I shall, you will, he/she/it will, we shall, they will). If I hadn't read it in a grammar book, I would never have known. If I really think about it, I have heard it used this way (by old people mostly).