"Lunch is at my parents' house."
Translation:El almuerzo es en la casa de mis padres.
I agree. Wouldn't 'el almuerzo' translate to 'the lunch' and 'almuerzo' simply 'lunch'?
In English, we don't need the word "the" to delineate it as a noun, so we colloquially drop it ("the lunch" is a valid phrase). You wouldn't say "hairbrush is at my parents house" -- you'd say "the hairbrush is at my parents house." We can't colloquially drop the "el" in spanish because "almuerzo" is also the yo form of the verb "almorzar." So it could be "I eat lunch at my parents' house" if yo don't include "el."
(No expert in spanish, but that's how I'm remembering it.)
Very logical explanation indeed. Without "El" , Almuerzo becomes "Lunch" for person saying it, that is I / Yo . Still very ambiguous since "I eat lunch" becomes "Yo como almuerzo" equals "Almuerzo ..." may be not.
Duolingo has used both nouns with article and without article to mean the same thing.
Lunch does not seem permanent, so I chose the "estar" form. Why would the "ser" form be correct?
If I say "El almuerzo es en casa de mis padres" and I am saying that I going to eat the lunch to my parents' house.
If I say "El almuerzo está en casa de mis padres" I understand that my parents have in their house the food that we are going to eat for lunch.
But it's not made clear from "Lunch is at my parents' house." which of those two scenarios is implied by "El almuerzo es en la casa de mis padres" because in English it could mean both, in fact, it's more likely to be the "está" version.
If you were going to <eat lunch> at your parents house you'd say "We're eating lunch at my parents house", or "We're having lunch at my parents house".
Ser and estar are hard enough to figure out without bad examples like this to complicate things.
I think it's a great example because it's a good lesson to learn. The question helps you out by having sentences with the wrong forms of "estar." You should know that the "el almuerzo" is not plural and should not be followed by "estaN," and that "estoy" is the conjugation for "yo," so the next logical solution is "es." Then you come into the comments to learn why, which is that "ser" is used for events (parties, meetings, lunches, soccer games, etc).
This is correct--ser is used for events, and is the most logical answer (to me) in this case. However, if you think of the food itself residing in your parents' house, then estar could be in order.
I find that it helps not to think "ser = permanent" and " estar = temporary" but instead to think "ser = characteristic" and "estar = status". In this case, lunch may be habitually at the parents' place "ser" or an upcoming lunch is at the parents' place "estar".
This is confusing. The correct answer in the slide I'm looking at, "El almuerzo está en la casa de mis padres." does not correspond with the translation shown in the title of the discussion, which is "El almuerzo es en la casa de mis padres.", even though the English sentence, "Lunch is at my parents' house." is identical. The Ser versus Estar explanation says they're not interchangeable. Which one is correct here, está or es? Could this be an exception where either one is acceptable, or is it simply a mistake?
Yeah, I can't really tell if this is a mistake or if I'm just really dumb.
I just got this version too! I got the 'ser' version the first time around, so this got terribly confusing.
I'm also confused, both ser and estar versions are apparently required for a correct answer, but I can't see how 'ser' is correct since where you have lunch is not permanent. (this comment is for the multiple choice version, where two correct answers are given)
The way I interpret it is that if I was saying lunch is at my parents house today, it would be estar, but if I go to my parents for lunch every week (which I do, being a good boy), it would be ser.
This is interesting. I came back here to review and still got this wrong. It requires I say it is both "es" and "está" for the exact same sentence structure. By placing "el almuerzo" as the subject the emphasis is then on the 'lunch' and I would use 'es'. If it said instead that I was going to my parents house for lunch then the emphasis is on where I am going for lunch and I would use "está". So my conclusion is that the emphasis is ambiguous thereby requiring both ser and estar third person verbs. Strange exercise.
"al casa" is a shortened version of "a el casa" which is incorrect since "casa" is feminine (requiring "la") and the sentence asks for "in the house", not "to the house". :)
When you are talking about a expecific place: at beach, at home, at office, then you must translate "at" as "en".