1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Trinke Wasser gegen den Durs…

"Trinke Wasser gegen den Durst."

Translation:Drink water to quench your thirst.

January 10, 2013



or "Drink water to quench thirst"..few more options please translators


Give suggestions in the report field!!! I am not a native English, so I don't give many. :)


As a native English speaker, we would normally say something like "Drink water if you are thirsty!" While the given translation is correct, it is just not used very often in normal speech.


That doesn't mean the same thing though. It's essentially a command telling you to drink water and what doing so would accomplish. The assumption is that the person telling you to drink water already knows that you are thirsty.

Telling somebody to drink water if they are thirsty does not tell them what it accomplishes. I could tell you to give me money if you are thirsty, but telling you to do something if you are thirsty doesn't tell you why doing that would help anything.

More to the point, this isn't about what you might say to somebody but about what the statement being translated means. It means that you should drink water to stop thirst.


"Trinke Wasser, um den Durst zu stillen" is equally seldom used (nowadays)


I'm not sure introducing the conditional aspect ("if") is remaining entirely true to the original German.


It isn't remaining entirely true. I don't know if the original sentence being translated is used in modern German, but the English translation given is not used in regular English speech. That is all I was trying to say. Since this is a German course and not an English course, I translate it the way DL wants me too, even if it sounds strange/dated to a native English speaker.


Remember this is a command (the imperative mood) not a suggestion. Think of it as something your mother might have said to you as a child, or a slogan in a health centre, not something a friend might say to you in a casual way.


I'm not a native speaker, but have everyday contact with English and it just sounds weird to me.


It's an awkward sentence to translate because of the lack of articles and the inclusion of articles. I would say "drink THIS water to quench YOUR thirst", I would seldom say "drink (space) water for the thirst". It just sounds wrong. There need to be a few more words to make it specific to a context otherwise it just sounds weird.


I think "drink water to quench your thirst" sounds fine with no article or determiner for the water. I get hundreds of google hits for that exact phrase, so I don't think I'm the only one. However I agree that "the thirst", out of context, sounds a bit weird.


It is an awkward sentence in English and sounds a little clunky. Maybe "Have some water to quench your thirst." or "Drinking water quenches your thirst."


Since Duo normally says the best tranlation for "Ich habe Durst" is "I am thirsty." The two translations below should be acceptable.

Drink water, if/when you are thirsty.

If/when you are thirsty, drink water.

But "Drink water to quench your thirst." I would say is the best formal Translation.


I'm a native English speaker; as a command I would say: 'Drink water and quench your thirst.' In fact: 'Drink water to quench your thirst' is a more likely a phrase I'd use if I were explaining to someone rather than directing them.


if it is an imperative sentence should not be: "Trink Wasser gegen den Durst." ?


Both ‘Trinke’ and ‘Trink’ are valid for the ‘du’ form of the imperative. ‘Trink’ is the more modern form.


It would be nice if duolingo had ever explained that. what it said to do was remove the 'st' from the 2nd person singular present. Which is not "trinkest"


DL explained it very thoroughly even using the German leave as in leave it as an example. Also the very first example was trink as in drink no beer. Trink kein Bier. Oder, Trinke kein bier. You my want to read the tips section again more thoroughly.


You probably havent read the tips properly then. The rules clearly mention that, you can add (e) to the verb in the imperative after removing (-st) or just leave it as it is. Both trink ans trinke are the same thing. (Trinke) is archaic but both of them are correct.


Nowhere does Duo mention this fact in the tips.


Ugh. The tips on the web app are different from tips in the (at least Android) mobile app. The web app tips don't say anything about -e.

So the frustration is valid.


That explains my confusion (not frustration). Thank you. This is why I come to the comments. It is a very important provision of Duolingo. There are so many things worth knowing that would be impossible to explain without the learners and native speakers being proactive. Thanks to all of you who are helping me to learn. (Both learners and teachers)


What do you mean? Duo's rule works fine here. The second person form is "trinkst," which removing the "-st" from gives "trink," which as AndreasWitnstein said is the best imperative form.

But not all "rules" Duolingo says are perfect anyway; most rules have exceptions. The imperative of "sein," for instance is "sei," rather than "bi" (removing "-st" from "bist").


I think they mean that Duo suggests to remove -st from the 2nd person present to form the imperative, but in this question gives 'Trinke Wasser', thereby going against its own 'rule'.


No, I think they're saying that Duolingo should've mentioned this option in the lesson tips if it's going to include it, anyway.


That would be fine if the word Duo gives was "trink" but it is "trinke" which is not from the du or the ihr or the Sie form


Why is 'Trinke' valid for the 'du' form? That is not in anything Duo has said that I can recall. It looks like the Ich form to me.


It is the imperative form of trinken. The conjugation table here may help you.


that gives none of the kinds of forms Duolingo usually talks about, e.g. nominative, dative, accusative.


There's no reason it would. Those are noun cases; "trinken" is a verb.


Read the tips again, it can be trinke or trink, both are correct. Trinke is archaic


@skb97. You mean these lesson tips? https://www.duolingo.com/skill/de/Verbs-Imperative/tips-and-notes ? I see no mention of that there. Certainly 'trink' is not mentioned at all.


I think I see the source of the confusion here. It turns out that the "Tips" section is different in the phone app than on the computer. I too was sure that the optional "-e" was not mentioned in the tips I had read on the computer version, but I checked my phone, and there it was. Duo reassures us there that the extra e is optional and the meaning is still the same. It would be nice if the tips were consistent across platforms!


Okay while that is a direct translation you wouldn't really say in English "Drink water against the thirst." - would you? "Drink water FOR the thirst" is more correct or even "Drink water to combat thirst."


No, it's not good English. Please report it. “for the thirst” isn't correct either, unless it's a particular kind of thirst. “Drink water to combat thirst.” is an excellent translation.


"Drink water to combat thirst" is ACCEPTED!


Drink water for thirst.--is accepted as of December 2017.


that is what I had thought of putting first, but Duo is so picky about putting in or leaving out "the". I will try it if it comes up again.


"Drink water for thirst" sounds very strange im supprised it was accepted.


My preferred translation, "Drink water for the thirst", is accepted.


That's not English either. It shouldn't be accepted.


I think that "Drink water for the thirst" would be good English, given an appropriate context. For example, if I describe some symptoms including thirst to a doctor, I might be told "Drink water for the thirst".

If I understand you, you are saying that "Drink water for the thirst" does not mean the same as the German sentence. I defer to you on that point; I'm not confident in my interpretation of the German sentence.

However, "Drink water against the thirst" does not fit the context I proposed above, nor any other that I have yet thought of. It seems like bad English, rather than merely a mistranslation.


I am a native US English speaker and I try to always do two translations from German to English. The first is word for word "drink water against the thirst". This is the most important part, because i am not going to translate german to english for other people, only for me to understand the meaning. But also how i would want to say it if i'm trying to speak german. So, in common english conversation, we would not usually use the noun "thirst", there is no way to directly translate this sentence english and have it sound common. But you can usually translate things directly that are acceptable english, "Drink water to counter the thirst." is the translation i will use in my head.


That's a good way to make sense of the sentence but in real life this native speaker would say "Drink water if you're thirsty."


Oh wow, you're right. Thanks! I hadn't thought of that context. And the German sentence „Trink Wasser gegen den Durst.“ is valid in that situation too.


"Drink water to quench your thirst" would be a better translation of this sentence, but "Drink water if you're thirsty" is probably what is commonly said in English. Is "Trinke Wasser gegen den Durst" something people in Germany actually say to someone who is thirsty?


„Trink(e) Wasser gegen den Durst“ is a normal way to say it in German, but more likely as a generic recommendation than directly to a thirsty person.


why trinke not trink


when to use "Trinke", "Trink" and "Trinkt" in a sentence.? I am a bit confused with this usage in a sentence.


"trinke" and "trinkt" are for talking to a single person (du), with "trink" being more common.

"trinkt" would be for speaking to multiple people (ihr)

And also, "trinken Sie" would be for speaking to a single person using the formal you.


you said - "trinke" and "trinkt" are for talking to a single person (du), with "trink" being more common.

did you mean "trinke" and "trink" are for talking to a single person (du), with "trink" being more common. ?


Why does trinke has and e ending?


Both 'trink' and 'trinke' can be used for du, while 'trinkt' is used for ihr.


'Trinke' is imperative, or it means that I'm drinking? in such case, it contains an occult subject?


It's imperative. There are not occult subjects in German (as in Spanish for example).


"Drink water to quench YOUR thirst" sounds best to my native ears. Duo's translation doesn't sound natural at all.


So can you use "gegen" in this way? "Trage deinen Mantel gegen die Kälte."? (Wear your coat against the cold.)


Its like with allergies...Ich bin allergisch gegen Erdbeeren or I'm allergic to strawberries.


Why is the accusative "den" used for Durst?


I just saw this sentence for the first time, and tried “Drink water if you’re thirsty.”. It was accepted. “Drink water against the thirst” is not normal English, something else should be the main translation, there are plenty of good suggestions here.



DL accepts "Drink water for thirst" but I also wonder whether anyone these days would say "Drink water to slake your thirst".


wait so is the imperative for drink:"trink" or "trinke" or both?ich bin sehr confused


As a brit native speaker the sentence"Drink water if you're thirsty" sounds more natural to me.


The use of "for" in contexts like this is not unusual in English. Drink water for your thirst is no stranger than Use this cream for your rash or Try this bandage for your bad leg. It is counter-intuitive and illogical, but it's what we say.


is "trink wasser gegen deinen durst" OK then?

i know there's like 110 comments on this thread already but i did a word find on "deinen" and no one seems to have asked this yet lol


yes, i must agree that the translations are awkward. I understood what the sentence was asking for and tried something that sounded natural in english: "drink water when you are thirsty". Funny that this was rejected, but the same sentence without the word "you" is accepted.


It's a matter of context. A nurse talking to a patient might say “Drink water when(ever) you're thirsty” = „Trink(e) Wasser wenn du durst hast.“, but in an informational brochure, the impersonal “Drink water when thirsty.” = ‘Trinke Wasser gegen den Durst.“ oder „Gegen Durst Wasser trinken.“ would be more likely.


Drink water against the thirst certainly doesn't sound right in English. Personally I would say "Drink water to avoid being/getting thirsty"


I am not a native speaker of English, I have no idea what "quench" means.


Here, quench means to stop thirst. It can also mean to put out a fire.

I'm on mobile and timestamps don't show on my phone, so sorry if I'm responding way later.


Does 'Trinken Sie Wasser, um Ihren Durst zu löschen' work as a translation for 'Drink water to quench your thirst'?


Is the following German sentence correct? "Trink Wasser, damit du deinen Durst löschst."


Doesn't "gegen" mean against? Then shouldn't this phrase mean "drink water against the thirst"? A bit confusing here...


Doesn't "gegen" mean thirst?

I assume you mis-wrote this, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret it.

Then shouldn't this phase mean "drink water against the thirst?"

Yes, the word-for-word translation is "against the thirst," but that sounds very strange in English. "Drink water to quench your thirst" sounds better and means about the same as the German sentence.


what the matter¡ "a" article is huge problem in this application. No necessity to use "a" article in this case¡


Can someone explain the difference between “trinkE“, “trinkT“ and “trink“ ?? please


Trinke is first person. I.e. ich

Trinkt is second person. I.e. er, sie, es

Trink is no subject [I think] , or when there is no reference to someone, but a thing.

Such as "trink nicht" or "trink es nicht" [I'm not too sure about how to explain trink but this should give an idea]


I tried 'drink water to prevent thirst.' Not accepted. Not sure if it should be, it's not quite the same.

  • 2436

No, not quite the same. However, "Drink water to stop thirst" was accepted on 13 Feb 2018. So maybe "prevent" is accepted now too.


So "gegen den" means to quench something? Can I apply the same idea with all the other contexts?


I would think it only applies with "Durst" but I am only thinking from an English point of view not a German one! You may wish to look at the Oxford English dictionary of "quench" though - https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/quench I don't know if you can use the german expression " gegen den Durst" for all of these "quench" uses - I suspect not. Perhaps a native German speaker can answer your question better than me.


"drinking water quenches your thirst" is not accepted? Is it because gegen is the infinitive?


No, it's because Trink(e)! is a command form.

gegen literally means "against", so a literal translation would be "Drink water against your thirst!"

It's not a statement about what happens if you do drink water.


I understood this phrase to mean that in order to avoid being thirsty you should drink water. Hence I translated it 'Drink water to stave off thirst'


"drink water if youre thirsty" is accepted


As is "drink water to prevent thirst."


"Drink water to fight the thirst" works too


So does "Drink water to fight thirst." I think i will try "Drink water to vanquish your thirst" next time.


Nope, didn't work


Warum ist "Drink water to rid your thirst" falsch?


"Drink water to be rid of your thirst" or "Drink water to rid yourself of thirst" would both work. So would "Drink water to get rid of your thirst."


Everyone is saying 'YOUR thirst' even though the sentence says 'DEN'. Shouldn't it be 'DEIN'?


Well, it would be "deinen" (Akkusativ ist hier nötig), but there's some idiomatic usage going in play. Still, I think one could probably use deinen.


"trink Wasser gegen den Durst" was not accepted as correct. I was told it should be "trinke". There have been several comments over 5 years on this thread asking why the e is needed but no explanations. The report button does not give the option of 'my answer should be accepted'. Come on Duo, this is supposed to be teaching us German. How can we learn if we do not understand our mistakes?


What does quench even mean????


Quench means several things like quenching a red-hot metal blade by immersing in oil to cool it down.

In this context "to quench your thirst" is the same as saying "to slake your thirst" or to satisfy your thirst by drinking.


Why is it "den" durst?


Akkusativ. Note that Durst (not durst) is a masculine noun. The definite article for a singular, masculine noun, being used as an Akkusativ, is declined as den.


‘Drink water against the thirst’ is also accepted.


Are you sure? I tried it just now and was refused.


As of September 2019, "Drink water against the thirst." is an acceptable translation.


I wrote "drink water against the thurst" and it was accepted.


Why there is "your"and not "the"thirst?


It makes more sense in English to say "your thirst" because it is a feeling/desire belonging to a person, rather than something more detached ("the thirst"). This is one of those situations where the spirit sentence is preferred over the literal translation.


Why "Drinking water helps against thirst" isn't acceptable?


Because the German sentence is a command: "Drink water to quench your thirst."


Why "trinke" not "trink"


I'm pretty sure that it can be either for singular imperative. ( Update) Havingg just skimmed through these comments it seems that 'trink' is a more modern version, but both are acceptable.


I would say the translation is still wrong as "Drink water to quench your thirst" because it says "your", which is not correct translation for the "den Durst". The ideal would be to change the German expression to "dein Durst", but as non German native, I'm not sure that would be possible.


"Drink water to combat thirst" is accepted :)


I just typed this with out den but i got it right


"Drinking water quenches thirst" not acceptable tho it's imperative tense


That's not imperative, but rather a simple declarative sentence:

  • Drinking water <= a noun phrase, where "drinking" is a gerund and serving as the subject of the sentence
  • quenches <= the verb
  • thirst <= direct object


Why is trink not accepted ?


A few more translation options, please "Drink water to beat thirst" for example


I've never heard the word quench before.


So it is now 'trinke Wasser' but a couple of lessons ago it was 'trink kein Bier'. Trinke was said to be old fashioned usage. So drinking water is old but drinking (or not drinking) beer is modern. Duo needs to be consistent.


Why is it Trinke and not Trink?


Adding the -e is how the imperative is normally formed, but in spoken German, it is often dropped. Detailed discussion at CollinsDictionary.com.


How to figure out when to use "trinke" and when "trinkst". I understand the conjugation of "trinken" with ich/er/sie etc, but if it just written "Eat and drink" and likewise, how does one know which form of "trinken" to go with?


quench....which word is "quench" in this German translation? Not gegen?


There's no individual word that translates to "quench"; the literal translation is "Drink water against the thirst" ("gegen" = "against"). But that means the same as "Drink water to quench your thirst," which sounds better in English.


This sounds like a water company advertisement


I have written: "Drink the water against your thirst", and it was accepted. Is it really right? I am not native English speaker, help me please to understand.


I wrote:"Drink the water against the thirst", and it was accepted. Is this really right? I am not a native speaker. Help me please to understand. Thank you in advance


No, that's not a natural English sentence at all; I'm not even sure it would be understandable. You need something like "Drink water to quench your thirst."

In addition, you have "Drink the water" but the German sentence just has "Trinke Wasser." I'm rather surprised Duo accepted your translation, to be honest.


I wrote:"Drink the water against the thirst", and it was accepted. Is this really right? I am not a native speaker. Help me please to understand. Thank you in advance


I wrote:"Drink the water against the thirst", and it was accepted. Is this really right? I am not a native speaker. Help me please to understand. Thank you in advance


Drink water your thirst goes? Would someone please tell me why it's wrong!


That's not an understandable English sentence at all. I'm not sure what you're translating as "goes" either; there's nothing in the German sentence that means that. (Perhaps you meant something like "Drink water. Your thirst goes [away]," but that's pretty different from the German sentence.)


I'm sorry my mistake thank you sir anyway you helped


Why is „Trink Wasser gegen den Durst” wrong?


"Trinke wasser" does this not mean I drink? Shouldn't it be "Trink wasser"


"Trinke" is the same verb form you would use for "I drink," but you would need "Ich trinke Wasser" to actually mean that. Since "ich" is not there, it must be the command form. Both "trink" and "trinke" are correct for the command "Drink water."


Yes, and if you talk to yourself you also use the 2nd. Or Sie if you are formal with yourself.


This was a lesson for English, too...


What's the difference between trinke and trink as far as imperatives


What's the difference between trink and trinke as far as imperatives


the quenchiest -_-


Drink water to satisfy your thirst


The audio is wrong sounds "Trink.Wasser Wasser den Durst"


Um the new female voice clearly says, "Trinke Wasser Wasser den Durst" for some reason. She says it both at normal speed and slowed down.


The new voice has an error replacing "gegen" with "wasser" as she says "trinke wasser wasser den durst" 2.7.2020


One of the male voices totally sounds like its saying, "Trinke Wasser Wasser den Durst." Both on the normal and slow speeds.


Drink water to quench the thirst is accepted on Mittwoch, 10 Mai 2017


I like that Duo translates dynamically, so we don't get unexpected funny looks.


Now it's "trinke" wasser. How are these all imperative? Imperative implies "you"


What is den again?


Accusative male the.


"Drink water to combat thirst." is accepted :)


I hate when Duolingo shows you rules for how to do something, and then in the first lesson, shows you all the examples of when those rules don't apply. Trinkst minus the st should just be Trink. I get that it can be both, but explain that before throwing off all of your students who depend on those rules for self-study.


Trinke is for singular and trinkt for plural, is it? Also with some other forms I notice differences, like iss vs. esst.


Why "Trinke"? Somebody else said that "Trink" should also be accepted but in my case it wasn't and I have no idea what is going on :< Anybody?


It is difficult to identify "trinke" vs "trink" in the audio


" Drink water "for" your thirst" Was accepted. For, yet gegen means against, versus.


What is wrong with saying "Drinking water quenches the thirst"? I was marked wrong!


You can see mizinamo's answer to the very same question made by bobandnoo three months earlier.

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