1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Jetzt, fünf Jahre später, le…

"Jetzt, fünf Jahre später, lesen wir es erneut."

Translation:Now, five years later, we read it again.

October 30, 2015



Sounds like the beginning of the epilogue to a good novel.


Why not "anew" and isn't "again" translated as "wieder"


"anew" should be accepted.

"again" can be "wieder" or "erneut".


1/19/18 - "anew" was accepted. :)


@mizinamo, are wieder and erneut interchangeable?


I think so, together with nochmal / noch einmal.


Is it "nochmal" or "nochmals"? Or are they just different words? If so, are they interchangeable?


Is it "nochmal" or "nochmals"? Or are they just different words?

They are different words.

They have a similar meaning but not quite the same. I'm not sure how to explain the difference, though, since I would translate both of them to "again" in English.


Nochmal is contracted from "noch" and "einmal". Informal.

noch­mals = ein weiteres Mal, noch einmal.

Nochmal vs. nochmals: this and this.



Immer passt es nicht, aber meistens.


Erneut can be used as -

To use again (reuse): erneut benutzen.

To start again (restart): erneut anfangen.

To install again (reinstall): erneut installieren.

To check again ( recheck): erneut prüfen.

to regenerate sth. : etw. erneut erstellen.

...and so on.

Can you translate, "please try again" using erneut?


Why is the verb not in second place here? Jetzt, fünf Jahre später, wir lesen es erneut. < Like this, I'm guessing it's a specific type of subordinate clause? Or one of the three clauses?


"Jetzt, fünf Jahre später" is the first part of the sentence, so "lesen" comes right after it to be in second position. I'm not quite sure why you would expect both that phrase and "wir" to go before "lesen"; that clearly doesn't put "wir" second.

There are no subordinate clauses here, just a single verb "lesen." "Jetzt, fünf Jahre später" is just an adverbial phrase.


Thanks for the reply, I thought the Jetzt, fünf Jahre später, was broken by the two commas, therefore the third part stood on its own.

so jetzt, < own part. fünf Jahre später, < own part. and the next section was a sentence or subordinate with a verb.

I've never seen the [subj/obj] [verb] where subj/obj is separated by a comma and is still acting as a single entity.

I was told if you can replace it with 'they' then it can all be before the verb. Now, five years later seems like two separate things. But I guess rather than 'they' it is interchangeable with 'then'.


I don't fully understand your reasoning, but the verb is pretty much always going to come right after the first element of the sentence unless that first part is (1) a direct address ("Hans, wir lesen es erneut") or an interjectory word that you could put an exclamation point after ("Ja,(!) wir lesen es erneut").

You can put a number of different things before the verb-- subject, object, adverb, prepositional phrase, etc. That adverb or prepositional phrase could be a "then" or a "there" or a great number of things ("In unserem Haus lesen wir es erneut"; "Mit Freunden lesen wir es erneut").


It's hard to explain what I mean. Basically it's the commas that threw me off.

Even in those examples I would know its a single entity grouped from multiple words [in unserem Haus] [verb] because there is no comma separation between the word just spaces and you wouldn't separate any of the words in the phrase. [Jetzt, fünf Jahre später] [verb] is the first time I've come across comma separated text which is still a single entity.

Maybe it's because commas act differently in English, or because I've seen direct addressing previously which has made me treat commas like the example you show above with the verb three places when including 'Hans'.

But I would consider 'now' to act on its own and 'five years later' to also be its own phrase. If I had seen [fünf Jahre später] [lesen] I wouldn't have batted an eye. It would make sense.

Anyways I think I now understand the reasons from your answer. So thank you for explaining it to me.


Ah, I think I see what what your misunderstanding is now. The commas are just for clarity; they're not really separating "jetzt" and "fünf Jahre später" from the rest of the sentence. What we really have here is commas around "fünf Jahre später" so that "jetzt" doesn't "run into it," more or less. ("Jetzt fünf Jahre später lesen wir es erneut" just mashes up too many words together.) We would also pause in those two places when speaking, so the commas denote that too.

So the commas are there for the same reason they're there in English ("Now, five years later, we're reading it again"), not for any special reason of German grammar.


Good question. You and I both are used to putting the subj after the verb when another part of the sentence is emphasized at the first of the sentence. Ex: Ins Auto gehen wir. But, I think part of this adverb lesson is to demonstrate that some adverbs(or adverb phrases) although they are at the beginning of the sentence, are not to be the emphasis of the sentence... please correct me ...... Which begs another question: Why create a sentence with an adverb phrase pushed to the front, but not to take emphasis of that sentence?


Can't it be "now, five years later, we reread it"?


I think it can. I've added that now.

  • 1598

Whats the difference between nun and jetzt?


Does it mean that we will, after five years, (in the future) reread it again, or that we are now reading it again, after having read it since five years ago? Are the five years exsisting in the past or in the future?


We read it five years ago and are reading it again now.

(The sentence has "now" and "five years later" as equivalent, so it is now five years later [than it was before].)


Many thanks. Of course you mean by: "we read it", that the genuine Germans read it in that way! or I misunderstand!


I meant the "we" in the original sentence. :)

"We" already read it five years ago and are now reading it again.


Thank you again, may because it is without have and since: we have read it since 5 years ago........, of course every language in the world has its own manners of building a sentence, that is a normal thing.


"We have read it since 5 years ago..." is not an English construction.


Why isnt "after five years" correct?


It's just a less faithful translation; that would be nach fuenf Jahren


Why not "we read it again, give years later" ? Sounds more natural to me


You didn't translate "jetzt." (And "give" should of course be "five," but I assume you just mistyped that here.)


Why '....we are reading it again' is not correct even if you go see a hint and it says that 'are reading' is a possibility?


Why '....we are reading it again' is not correct

What was your entire sentence?

There are accepted sentences that include the words we are reading it again, so if your answer was rejected, perhaps you made a mistake somewhere else?

Please always quote your entire answer when you have a question. Or even better: take a screenshot, upload it to a website somewhere (e.g. imgur), and include the URL to the image in your comment.

For example, did you write "after five years" (= nach fünf Jahren) rather than "five years later" (= fünf Jahre später) ?


Why not "Now, five years later, we are reading it again" Sounds ok to my Aussie ears.


Why not "Now, five years later, we are reading it again"

That's one of the accepted translations.


i see absolutely no reason for my answer not to be accepted, if not for the sake of learning, then for the sake of practicality : "Now, after five years, we're reading it again."


Rewording part of the sentence is usually not recommended on Duolingo. "Five years later" is a perfectly good translation, and it's the one Duo expects.

I agree that "after five years" is equivalent, but apparently the contributors didn't think of it. For that reason, you should in general stick to word-for-word translations if they sound okay in English.


Warum ist: "Now, we read it again five years later. "falsch? Ich glaubte das Verb muss vorn im Satz und die Zeit hinten. Im Deutschen würde ich beide Varianten benutzen.


If you mean you thought it was required in English to construct the sentence that way, then no. Your version is fine, but so is the one Duo provided. To quote -Copernicus- from 3 months ago, "Rewording part of the sentence is usually not recommended on Duolingo...you should in general stick to word-for-word translations if they sound okay in English." This is just practical advice, not making any judgements about the quality of other translations.


Why not 'Now, after five years, we are reading it again'?


That's a reasonable translation; evidently the contributors just didn't think of it.

In general I recommend sticking to more direct translations of the German sentences (i.e. "five years later"); different wordings may be perfectly fine, but they make it more likely that your answer isn't in Duo's database.


How would you say "Now, 5 years later, let's read it again"?


Good question. I believe it would be, "Jetzt, fünf Jahre später, lass uns es erneut lesen".


What's wrong with "Now, five years after, we read it again"


"after" is usually a preposition in English, not an adverb -- but there's nothing after the preposition here so it feels as if something is missing.

Use "five years later".


what about "after five years"


I think that is a No!


why not: "now, after five years, we read it again"


Probably because it doesn't say "after five years", it says, "five years later". Why paraphrase when the direct translation works just fine?

Learn German in just 5 minutes a day. For free.