What about : "there is an ant in the sugar"? Could it be a possible translation as well?
it should be accepted as it means the same and it sounds much more natural than the original solution
I agee, I also chose this as a translation because "an ant is in the sugar" just doesn't sound right. No native speaker would ever say it like that.
But "there is an ant in the sugar" is not what it says. I may have similar meaning but in Italian that sentence is different.
Just as you could say either "there is an ant in the sugar" or "an ant is in the sugar" in English, you could say "una formica è nello zucchero" or whatever the Italian translation of the second is.
To accept both answers would be false teaching, and will confuse the learner.
You CAN say "I know not" too, and you would be understood. That doesn't make it right.
Why not? I mean I'm not a native English speaker and I was always taught that "An ant is in the sugar" doesn't sound good and we are supposed to say there is an...Is that not so? Or if it is so shouldn't we use what is more correct instead of word by word translation?
For example in the German idioms lesson it accepted both the word by word translation and the English equivalent of the idiom which wasn't very similar. Like word by word it means one hand washes the other, but the equivalent idiom is You scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
Well in English, yes, it still makes sense without "there". I was meaning in the Italian sentence given "there" was not in the sentence, so it shouldn't be in the translation.
Translation of formica could be beaver, but it won't take "The beaver is in the sugar!" I personally think it's more interesting that way.
It might be nello because it's a contraction of in and lo and not in and il. As far as I understand it, in+il= nel, in+lo=nello
Exactly. It depends on what the definite article is. Lo, which is used before words that start with a z or an s+consenent, becomes nello, while il becomes nel