but it is proper spainish. translations are not literal. you are translating the idea, not each word. Por, in spainish also means through. It does show the english translation correctly as: "The water went down the drain".
From what I've learned in this lesson so far, putting "se" in front of conjugates of "ir" (e.g., fue) changes the meaning from "going" to "leaving". There are a few other words that can be modified by adding the appropriate reflexive pronoun in front.
Yes. And knowing this, I used the word "left" instead of "went." I got it wrong.
Me too. But I think still this sentence indicates going from a place and not going to a place, so maybe that's why it's more appropriate to use "irse".
We're dealing with the reflexive use of the "ir" verb. The water (itself) went. It is both the subject (actor) and the object (one acted upon), so you must add the reflexive pronoun "se" before the verb.
same question Why cant the sentence be structured as "El agua fue por el desague" The use of SE seems random and unexplained to me thus far. I see sentences using ir/fue without the SE ...and others with the SE. Why do i need the SE?
this is not proper English. Water goes out the drain, or down the drain but not by the drain
What's wrong with the main translation, "The water went down the drain." ?
We do use 'by' in that way. It is short for 'by way of' (as in 'via' or 'through'). I think that "The water went by (way of) the drain" is perfectly acceptable, it is just unusual to use it in this way.
I understand that there are idiomatic ways of saying things in different languages and that eventually one will learn them, but is there an easier way to say this sentence in Spanish for a neophyte? For example "El agua fue abajo el desague." ?