"Du wirst ihn lieben lernen."

Translation:You will learn to love him.

December 7, 2013

This discussion is locked.

[deactivated user]

    Soo, arranged marriage or so?


    Or a stepparent/stepsibling. Either way, an ominous sentence!


    That's the only interpretation I can think of.


    ...In walks in a scaring old German step-mother with with big worts...


    I would understand the sentence if it were something like 'Du wirst lernen, ihn zu lieben'. I don't understand how german can introduce an infinitive's object without recurring to a subordinate clause.


    Your suggestion (Du wirst lernen, ihn zu lieben) is also correct.


    Would you mind elaborating on why we use 'zu' in this context, or when zu becomes appropriate and when it isn't? I mean, I know 'zu' in general is a pretty big topic, but just in these types of situations - because one translation uses a single clause and no 'zu', and the other uses two clauses and 'zu'.

    I've seen a similar sentence, she lets me eat her apples, where I translated it as 'Sie lässt mich ihre Äpfel essen', and while accepted, the suggested translation was 'Sie erlaubt mir, ihre Äpfel zu essen.' - I never manage to think up the 'zu' variant myself because I don't quite understand it. Thanks in advance! :)


    Surely SimoneBa can provide you with an excellent explanation, so I'll merely lay out the little I know. There are certain verbs in German, such as the mentioned 'erlauben', that admit as their complements infinitive subordinate clauses. Think of English 'She allows me to eat her apples', 'to eat her apples' being one of such clauses. In German, such clauses are usually built with 'zu + infinitive' at their end (with some exceptions, such as modal verbs, that don't allow the use of 'zu' in such constructions).

    That's all I know, now let's wait for someone who can explain better. :)


    You overestimate my capabilities, LOL, I can't come up with a sensible explanation at all, never mind a sophisticated one. I'm just a native speaker ;-)


    Psh I'll pretend I believe you. :) Here's a lingot for your modesty!


    It's totally true... but I'll have that lingot to console myself, ta very muchly ;-)


    A very good question, I have had difficulties with the proper usage of "zu" too. After reading the comments here in this thread maybe this simple rule of thumb could be correct.

    If an activity is the direct object in the second clause of a sentence then you should use the prefix "zu". but if the activity is used as a direct object in the simple one-clause sentence then forget the "zu".


    • ich mag schwimmen vs. ich mag es, zu schwimmen;
    • ich lerne Tennis spielen vs. ich lerne nie, Tennis zu spielen;

    Could the described rule above work?


    I'm afraid that won't work for all cases. I think the reason 'zu' isn't used in this case is simply because the verb 'lernen' governs infinitive without 'zu'. As for why exactly that happens, I cannot tell. Canoo lists quite a few verbs that work the same way, but it's hard to find a general underlying principle as to why they behave the way they do: http://goo.gl/5EYi4r Check the 'Infinitive without zu' section.


    I always think of it as "to" in English,but the verb comes am Ende XD For example : I need to learn German, ich brauche Deutsch zu lernen Or, always try to speak in German Versuch immer auf deutsch zu sprechen


    "ich brauche Deutsch zu lernen" sounds to me like "I need German in order to learn", not "I need to learn German". Could anyone fluent in German comment on this one?


    So how would be: "You will learn him to love"?


    No, that word order does not work in English. In fact, if you said that to an English speaker, they would not understand what you meant.


    Sorry, I got caught up in German. I meant of course: "You will teach him to love". I guess that would be in German: "Du wirst ihn lieben lehren". NM, I just got too confused. Ignore me :)).


    Ah, makes perfect sense now :)


    I'm not saying I was an ugly baby, but that's what my father told my mother when I was born.


    Hah- it sounded to me like "Du wirst in Leben lernen," or "You will learn in life."

    So, is there actually an audible difference between "ihn Leben" and "in lieben"? And is it clear even with the synthesized voice, here?

    P.S. I suspect "in Leben lernen" isn't correct anyway. Probably has to be "im Leben lernen," right?


    I suspect that that it's more stressed when one says Ihn. Also I think "leben" can tend towards "lay-ben" while "lieben" tends towards "lee-ben." The rest probably comes from the context. I'm not a native speaker, so take this with a grain of salt.


    Thanks- sounds plausible. :-)


    Anyway this sounds good to me nice explanation.


    Not only "in"-"ihn" but also "lieben"-"Leben" are each singly perfectly to differ to me as a German native.

    1. "in" sounds like the English "bin" without the "b", while "ihn" sounds like the English "been" without the "b".
    2. The first vocal of "lieben" is like the vocal in "been", while the first vocal of "Leben"... well I don't know if it exists in English; maybe it is something like "eh". Definitely it is between the ee in "been" and the e in "bed". Like the long "e" in many other German words like "gehen", "Weg", "chemisch" and "jemand".
    3. Yes, you're right, it would be "im Leben lernen".


    I can't answer directly to the person who asked about the verb lassen. Lassen is considered a certain kind of Modalverben, so it doesn't need zu.


    A line from Game of thrones


    This coming right after "I'll find you"...


    Why is ihn pronounced like in in this sentence?


    Henchman in an old Sinbad film, i guess.


    Hey, Duo: "ihn" doesn't always translate as "him", but often as "it". OK? Gut!

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