"Vi må bruke tid på det."

Translation:We have to spend time on that.

October 29, 2015

This discussion is locked.


"We must use time for that" wasn't accepted. Can anybody explain why? I'm not a native English speaker, and I can't see any grammatical problem with that sentence :/


Your words are clear and understandable but not quite how we would actually say it. We would either say "we need to spend time on that" or "we need to make time for that." However, the words "make time" suggests that the speaker is busy and it's not easy to find \the time.


You would say "we must make time for that".


As a native English speaker [USA], I tried "for that" as well, but mainly because I was at a loss as to a more appropriate response (I didn't realize, or forgot, that "bruke" could be used as something other than "use"). "We must use time for that" sounds a little odd, but "We have to use time on it" is even stranger (to me), which is an accepted answer.


That is what I thought, too. Sometimes (like in here) I try to translate as directly as possible, even if it sounds a bit weird, but I still think it should be accepted. Thanks for the explanation!


[UK] Sounds old-fashioned yet correct.


But doesn't simply mean "on" and not "for"?


It depends on the context I think. Most of the time it means "on" but in other contexts can mean other things.


There's a spelling mistake in the background. When I give the right answer I get: You Have An Extra Space: We need to use time forit.


It's been fixed now, thanks!


I tried to report that but there is nowhere to report errors in the English sentence.


I used "we must invest time in it". Would you say that is wrong?


A lot of comments here have been wondering if the verb 'bruke' also means 'spend'. It may well do, I'm not sure. I have noticed, however, that in Norwegian verb meanings are often altered when combined with a modal. So, I am wondering if 'må bruke' means 'spend'.

Clarification from a native speaker would be greatly appreciated.


I'm not a native but according to the dictionary "bruke" has 4 meanings: use (til-for); spend,use,consume (på-on)-bruke penger-spend money; do habitually, usually (han bruker ikke å lyve-he doesn't usually lie); complain, scold (reflexiv)


bruke. was /use/ and now /spend/ each verb has more than tow meaning


Every word in every language lacks a discrete, unblurred, indivisible meaning. Head explodes


I typed "we must use time on it" which was marked correct but it sounds strange to me so what is the more accurate translation?


More colloquially, "we must spend time on that"


Why is this "bruke" rather than "bruker"?


[Må] is an auxiliary, so the verb ought to be on infinitive.


Would "We must take our time over that" have been accepted? I didn't risk it but it sounds more natural to me, though the emphasis may be a little different.


I assume you are not a native English speaker, because "We must take our time over that" doesn't sound natural at all (American English speaker, but I am certain British and Australian English speakers would agree). Here are the basic reasons WHY it doesn't work:

(a) The possessive/reflexive 'our' shouldn't be here. 'To take one's time' is an English idiom, but it doesn't mean 'to spend time working on something'; rather, it means 'to go slowly', or 'to move or work at a relaxed pace.'

(b) You can use the phrase 'to take time', but 'over' is not the right preposition for it: you have to use 'for'. So while you could possibly say "We must take time for that," even though it's technically grammatically correct, it still sounds a little old-fashioned, or slightly odd - like something a foreigner might say.


I am a native English speaker (from England), and an English teacher to boot! You must be aware that there are many significant differences between American and British English, and this exchange serves to highlight that.

Learn Norwegian (Bokmål) in just 5 minutes a day. For free.