I am surprised that "go out with" translates kind of literally to German. I have always thought it is an odd saying in English, and I remember trying to translate it to Spanish once, and it did not translate so directly as this.
EDIT: Somehow this is one of my more popular comments despite being entirely incorrect!
I recall my Spanish teacher saying that it didn't translate like that, but this could have been a dialect thing (this suggests that could be the case: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2042391). But it was a long time ago.
I was also kinda surprised that it translated almost literally to English. There are differences though.
But to the point. Despite what the rest of the comments say, it does not translate literally to Spanish. It seems like it does, but id does not. The literal translation would be "Quieres tú conmigo ir afuera?", and not really "Quieres salir conmigo". I know that it seems almost equal, but the difference lays on the preposition "aus", which ,in German, is in fact part of the verb.
But it is a big "but". In German, 'ausgehen' is a separable verb. The conjugation is "gehe ... aus" and so on. For example, "Ich gehe mit ihr zu essen aus" which means "I am going out with her to eat". In Spanish, it would translate as "Estoy yendo con ella a comer afuera" or "Yo voy con ella a comer afuera", which uses the verb "ir" and not the verb "salir".
So, again, no, it does not translate directly to Spanish. And yes, it almost translates directly to English. The reason is that Germanic languages put emphasis on the "effect" that the action (verb) does to the subject. In this case, the action makes the object to change its position. The subject is out of somewhere as a result of the action. In Romance languages, the emphasis almost always lays on the subject or on the object. As a result of that, most verbs which require a preposition to modify the action are expressed as a single word (Ex: "ir afuera"="salir", "ir adentro"= entrar", "poner adentro"="meter", "poner afuera"="sacar", "ir arriba"="subir", etc.). This is a longstanding phenomenon, as it comes from the Latin "ablative" case, which is all but lost in most Romance languages, being directly replaced by a preposition, or like in this case, with specialized words.
I think this just depends on how you're translating the verb "ausgehen". If you translate to English ("to go out") and then from English to Spanish ("ir afuera"), then obviously the sentence does not translate to Spanish literally (word per word). However, you're missing that since the preposition "aus" is indeed part of the verb (like you said) then the whole verb can be translated directly as "salir" which like you also pointed out is the same thing as "ir afuera" in Spanish. If you look in a German-Spanish dictionary, you'll also find out that "ausgehen" translates as "salir". So obviously you have to reposition the words to match the destination language's grammar, but as a Spanish native speaker, to me it seems that the translation is in fact literal. ¿Willst du mit mir ausgehen? = ¿Quieres salir conmigo?
As a side note, "¿Quieres ir afuera conmigo?" or simply "¿Quieres ir afuera?" or "¿Quieres ir fuera?" are also correct, but have totally different meanings, they just mean to go outside of the building you're currently at, or to a terrace or balcony.
"Literally" means in a word by word manner. So, again, "Willst du mit mir ausgehen?" does not literally translates to "¿Quieres salir conmigo?". Simply put, the literal translation from German to Spanish of "ausgehen" is "ir afuera". Yes, a one word verb literally translates to a two word expression. Again, the big difference is in the paradigm in which each kind of language express their ideas. Also, there is a philological reason which incises on the morphology of 'ausgehen'. German, although coming from the Germanic family of languages, is highly influenced by Latin Grammar. 'ausgehen', as the infinitive form of the verb, is affected by the ablative case form of many Latin verbs, where the preposition becomes part of the verb itself. This is due current Germany being the place where the Holy Roman Empire resided at the end of its history. Nonetheless, the Germanic idiosyncrasy made the ablative to not really "morph" the word, but to just put the preposition before the verb, like "ausgehen", while conjugation still keeps them separate. Another example of this phenomenon is "dafür" where the article "das" is declined before "für".
Also, if you 'reposition' (rearrange,change) the words to translate them, then the translation is not literal". And the matter of this part of the thread is if it was or not a literal translation.
If you are curious about translations of the verb "salir" then you should check "exit" and "aussteigen", in English and German respectively.
On a side note, I'm also a native Spanish speaker. But, as you can see, translations are not easy things. Native speakers are not immediately qualified to make translations, specially literal ones.
I am sorry, but Ablative is the case which concerns nouns and adjective, verbs can't have it. Maybe you mean verba deponentia, but they work totally different, there's nothing like trenbaren Prefixen in Latin, I can assure you, you must be mixing up. There's more alike to Spanish se in Ronoun Verbs like irse -> me voy, tu vas etc. Although it adds to the end of the verb and not to the beginning like in German
To me, you do hairsplitting with this. First I'd like to note that initial comment contained "kind of literal" construction, which means that the author recognizes that it's not strictly literal, but rather ideomatically literal and we can find obvious match between Spanish and English words. Say, in Russian "going out" translates to "meet" (in mutual and continious meaning,like to be meeting one another this isn't any literal for going out). Or if we translate go out to have a date this wouldn't be any literal, but as soon as salir posseses the meaning to go out (ok, while leaving) to me it's literal enough.
Btw, going on with the hairsplitting tendency I suppose that go out is not the same as going outside, which is too literal and , I agree, would really be ir afuera, but out is not outside, it's like a modifier for to go, very much like German aus to gehen, just out doesn't merge with go. I mean, go out actually means to leave (the place) and it says nothing about where we are heading for and if we are going to reach outside by that, so it perfectly corresponds to Spanish salir. As for the word order to me it sound ridiculous to await the same in different languages. That meaning of word-to-word translation is not implied by the word "literally" just check the thesaurus. Translating in that way we 99.9% won't get any valid sentence unless the languages are really close and alike.
Well perhaps the reason behind is that English used to be just a dialect of German,that merged with Jutlandish(today's Denmark),but was greatly influenced and shaped by Latin,French,Dutch,Frisian through long periods of time.
In short,it's a Germanic language,i can't see why it would be so surprising,as a Croat i can find such examples in Russian,despite the distance between Russia and Croatia.
That's just plain wrong from an American English point of view in this context. Asking someone "will you go out with me?" inherently contains the question of whether they want to or not. An affirmative or negative answer without any other context directly answers whether or not the person wants to go out. The answer "yes but as friends" or "I can't, but I want to" require the additional explanation beyond a simple yes or no.
Roughly, "mit" is used when you can replace "with" with "using", "by means of" or "accompanied by". "Bei" is more locational. Here's a useful distinction.
Willst du mit mir schlafen? = Do you want to sleep with me?
Willst du bei mir schlafen? = Do you want to sleep at my house?
No, it is not a direct translation.
"will" in modern English almost always just indicates the future, while in German, wollen is about desires -- the most common modern English word for that is "want".
The meaning of the word in English has changed, and so even if it was etymologically connected, it's not a good translation any more as the sense is not the same.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a difference between "Do you want to go out with me?" (asking for wishes or desires) and "Are you going to go out with me?" (simply asking whether the statement will be true in the future, regardless of whether the person you're talking to does it voluntarily or not).
I agree, its still common to phrase a question as "Will you x?" This is the first I've heard it's no longer standard.
Asking about future plans is probably the most common way to use will. "Will you go to the party?" "Will you be home for dinner?"
So why would "Will you go out with me?" be different?
"Will you tidy up your room?" and "Do you want to tidy up your room?" can often have quite different answers -- the child might say that they do not want to, but that they will do so because they fear punishment.
It's a future plan but does not indicate desire.
Willst du...? asks about desire.
Wirst du...? asks about the future without asking about desire.
I asked my wife about this (she's German) and said this generic phrasing of "ausgehen" isn't common. It's more like "Willst du mit mir ___ gehen." People ask people to do specific things. "Willst du mit mir feiern gehen?" Feiern is partying, e.g. Clubs, drinking, bars. (If the focus is dancing you might say dancing but in conjures specific dancing events in mind.) "Willst du mit mir einen Kaffee trinken gehen?" Cultural differences ~