"We pay for him."
Translation:Nosotros pagamos por él.
If you paid the money to him, it would be para. The money was paid on his behlaf, so it is por.
I can give you money for shoes two ways: one, I buy shoes from you, the other, I give you money to buy yourself shoes. Por/para causes many headaches!
Before you can choose between por and para you need to know what aisle of the Spanish supermarket you're on.
These are the only five confusing aisles, the ones that contain both por and para:
- Purpose (para) vs. Reason (por)
- Normal recipient (para) vs. Favor recipient (por) <= in your sentence, you're doing him a favor
- Moment in time (para) vs. Amount of time (por)
- Destination (para) vs. Route (por)
- Opinion (para) vs. Indifference (por)
If you're not in any of these five aisles (or if you are, but para doesn't fit), use por.
I go deep into the usage of por and para in this post: http://itsnachotime.com/blog/por-para
It would have been nice to have learned the word "por" before I got this question.
As it seems to be such a minefield, some guidance would indeed have been useful !
Use of "para" meaning "for the benefit of" is explained there, I thought i grabbed the use of por/para but this really confuses me.
Differentiating para and por is by far the most difficult concept I've had to grasp so far. I'm pretty much guessing most of the time :)
Exactly! This seems a textbook example of that usage! I keep getting these wrong. :/
When do you use "por" after forms of pagar? In other sentences like "Pagamos la cena," using por isn't wrong, but it's not suggested because it's implied, whereas in this example, it's wrong to not have it there. When do you put it in and when do you leave it out?
When "for" = "on behalf of (someone/thing)", always use "por". Eg. We pay for him. = We pay on his behalf.
i have a different question - i'm not worried about para/por, but the use of él for him. i thought él was "he".
I would really like to call foul on this exercise sentence.
Translate the following:
We pay for him.
Given, Duo has a history of presenting peculiar exercise sentences to tested our grasp of and reinforce our knowledge of a concept.
However, this sentence is in a different class. This meaning of the sentence in the root language is already ambiguous.
How can we tell if Dou is playing it straight or not?
In the case of, "Yo soy un pingüino.", there is no need for context. Granted, "I am a penguin" is an odd thing to say. However, with knowledge of vocabulary alone we can manage this translation.
This is not true for, "We pay for him.", because the word "for" is ambiguous in this case. Why must the first party we pay for him? Could it be that he is a puppy and he is not being given away for free? Or could it be that he is a cheap skate who just happen to have conviently left his wallet home, again?
Without context we are left to guess the por/para preposition or purposefully enter a wrong answer in order to discover Duo's intended meaning of the root sentence.
However, this still does not serve as a teaching moment because of the inherently problematic nature of the whole por/para conundrum.
Now that the answer is revealed we see that Duo's intended translation is "Pagamos POR él."
Yet based on the information that I could synthesis from the following hyperlinked webpage, POR has many meanings. Which meaning of "POR" is intended?
Could it be the meaning of "por" pertaining to "exchange, including sale" or "por" pertaining to, "on behalf of"? This leads directly back to the same dilemma that we faced in the root language. Did the first party pay a third party because they were purchasing the second party? Or was the first party exchanging money with a third party in order cover a sales transaction that the second party couldn't or wouldn't pay themselves?
In fact the more I think about it, I can't see how Duo could cover the scope of "por" and "para". We will probably have to use the web to a great extent in order to achieve any degree of mastery over these two preposition which are somehow simultaneously bold yet subtle, versatile and distinct.
I guess the training wheels are off now.
We really need to have the syntax explanations back in the lesson sections. I'm finding, with the new look and format, that I have to access outside resources to understand the syntax, much like others in this thread. Not to mention, I'm seeing more words and syntax like this BEFORE I learn it in the lesson sections. Not a good way to learn the language, just very frustrating.
One supposes there is a method here, but it sure feels like some instruction before a section or at the time of an I left answer would be useful. I guess the idea here is to have instruction done by el comunidad.