"What brought you to this city?"
Translation:Was hat dich in diese Stadt geführt?
Manny4us, look at these two English sentences:
1. What has brought you to this city?
2. What have you brought to this city?
Can you see that these are two different sentences with two different meanings?
Can you see that in 1 "what" is the subject and "you" is the object; whereas in 2, "you" is the subject and "what" is the object?
You could, if you want to, use it as a synonym for "Innenstadt", the "inner city" / city centre of a, well, city (not a smaller town). "Ich gehe in die City" - it's really not common with the people I hear talking.
"Was hat Sie zu dieser Stadt gebracht?" sounds like "What (e.g. a car or train) brought you to the borders of, but not into this city?"
--> Was hat Sie in diese Stadt, in dieses Hotel / nach Berlin, nach Deutschland / zu mir, zu unserer Firma geführt?
"hat" is third person, "hast" is second. The question asks for the event, cause or intention that has led you here, thus the event is the subject and the third person is used. "What have you led here" would ask for something you led here and make you the subject, thus using the second person "Was hast du hier her geführt?"
Because that would ask what the person being asked has brought to this city, not the intentions or events that brought them there. "What has brought you here" vs "What have you brought here". In the first case, you'd need the event as the subject and a third person, where you would be the object being led here by the reasons that did so. In the second case, you are the subject, need a second person verb and the object would maybe be some people, trouble or whatever you brought there. Clear enough?
It is definitely a German word. http://pt.pons.com/tradu%C3%A7%C3%A3o?q=city&l=deen&in=&lf=en
Is "Warum hast du diese Stadt gekommen?" an ok Translation.
i.e. "Why did you come to this city?"
To me that that is the meaning of this question. Instead of the literal meaning which would have answer like "The bus brought me here."
Is my answer not accepted because "Was hat dich in diese Stadt geführt?" the german accepted equivalent to the more common english phrase?
Your sentence is something like "Why have you arrived this city?"
You can't "arrive something" - you need a preposition.
The question is "what", not "why".
The question says nothing about arriving in the city, although it is obviously a related concept.
In the English sentence "What brought you...", the subject is "What" and the object is "you". These correspond to nominative and accusative in German respectively. You hence need to conjugate the verb to "What" rather than "you".
I understand the difference between Perfekt and Präteritum, but without any context here, is there a reason that "Was führte dich in diese Stadt?" is wrong, since the only difference between that and the model right answer is Perfekt v. Präteritum?
(If the answer is the module, once you are on strengthen, you don't know what module you're in, so that's not helpful.)
If you write a novel about a time / place where cities still have walls around and the guy at the entrance asks a traveling person before deciding if he lets her inside the city... I'd say then you're right. In our times you use "in diese Stadt" or "nach XY (name of the city)"
1. The dative case is always used after "zu". So "zu diese Stadt" does not work. It would have to be "zu dieser Stadt".
2. But even "zu dieser Stadt" is probably not the best translation, because in German it suggests that you came up to the city limits but did not actually enter the city.
3. Bottom line: Go with "in die Stadt".
Are you asking if your sentence is a good translation of the English we are given here? It is not. For one thing, the English DL gives us includes the word "city", but your proposed sentence does not.
Or were you asking rather if your sentence is also an OK German sentence, albeit with a different meaning?
1. Transitive verbs always take "haben". In other words, if the verb has a direct object (here "dich"), you use "haben", not "sein". It is intransitive verbs of motion that take "sein" (walk, drive, etc.)
2. I see what you mean that "bringing" implies motion. But I think one could argue that the "bringing" per se is not itself the motion. So, for example, I can walk to your house and bring you a cake, I can run to your house and bring you a cake, I can drive to your house and bring you a cake. IMO it is the walking, running, driving, that is the verb of motion. The "bringing" is, in my mind, the cake curled up motionless in my arms. (In any case, note that the verbs of motion in my examples are all intransitive, whereas "bring" has a direct object, the cake.)
"In" takes the accusative case when it's referring to a destination (going into something from somewhere else). It only takes the dative when it's taking about a location (being within something the whole time).
Since the city is a destination here (we're taking about coming into the city" from somewhere else), we use the accusative.