1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "What brought you to this cit…

"What brought you to this city?"

Translation:Was hat dich in diese Stadt geführt?

February 24, 2013



Ist "hat geführt" das selbe wie "führte"?


hat geführt --> Perfekt; führte --> Präteritum


Wir können beides sagen. Was hat dich in diese Stadt geführt? Oder :"Was führte dich in diese Stadt?


Why doesn't "Was hast du in diese stadt gefuhrt" work?


Because that sounds like "What have you brought to this town?"


Duolingo suggested "Was hat Sie zu dieser Stadt gebracht?"once. What's the difference?


Your sentence has the verb hat in the third person singular, so the subject is was, and Sie must be the direct object.

Manny4us's sentence has hast in the second person singular, so the subject is du, and so was must be the direct object.


Okay so, in my sentence if "hat" was switched with "haben" would that change Sie to the subject?


Yes, it would.


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?


Why "in diese Stadt" instead of "in dieser Stadt" ? Shouldn't we use dativ after in?


One is a position, one a destination. (in)to this city = in diese Stadt with accusative, (with)in this city = in dieser Stadt with dative.


does "nach diese Stadt" not work? Either with führen or with bringen?


Nach is typically used without an article (nach Deutschland, nach Hamburg), while zu is used with an article (zu der/zur Stadt, zu dem/zum Haus)


Yeahhhh, but if you visit a friend you go zu ihm.

  • 1616

Good to know.


I have the same question. You would say "Ich gehe nach Berlin" right? Why not with "Stadt"? Berlin is a city after all.


Proper nouns (Berlin) and common nouns (city) act differently in many languages, including German. ;)


Why is this offered option wrong??

Was hat Sie zu dieser City gebracht?


City is not German, but it can be some kind of "denglisch".


I think I must've seen it among the proposed translations.


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?


"Was führte dich in diese Stadt?" is not accepted. This is getting a bit ridiculous: about a half of the exercises of this sort do not accept Präteritum. I keep reporting, but to no avail.


Why "hat dich" and not "hast dich"?


"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?"


"Was brachte dich in diese Stadt?" - Warum akzeptiert das Duolingo nicht? I think this is not wrong.


isn't 'Was brachte dich in diese Stadt?' also OK?


Should actually, yes


"Was führte dich in diese Stadt?" A correct translation from my point of view, but not accepted.


It is a correct translation from a conversational point of view, everybody would know what you want to know from them. But "brought" technically means "brachte" and not "führte". That's at least the only way I can imagine it.


Why is it 'zu dieser' and not 'zu diese' ? i thought the acusative was used when any kind of movement takes place


"zu" is a dative preposition, not a two-way preposition


So why was "Was habt ihr zu dieser Stadt gebracht" marked as incorrect?


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?


Would you interpret this sentence as (a) Why did you come to this city, or (b) How did you get to this city, or (c) both? If (a) or (b), how would you translate the other one? Thanks


(a) is the proper interpretation here.

Was hat dich hergeführt ? - What brought you here ? (Reasons for coming)

Wie bist du hierher gekommen ? - How did you get here ? (Means of transportation)


Being brought anywhere means that there was motion involved, so why must we choose haben here? i thought sein is necessary when the sentence indicates motion.

"Was ist dich in diese Stadt geführt?" Why is this incorrect?


Two comments:
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.)
3. In any case, the criterion for deciding "sein" vs. "haben" is not, as you say, just that "there [is] motion involved". It is when there are specific intransitive verbs of motion involved that "sein" is used. And typically the motion must be movement from one place to another, as opposed to motion within a fixed place.


Are there any examples of intransitive verbs being used reflexively? In those instances would the helping verb change from sein to haben?


Reflexive verbs are verbs that take their subject as direct object. For example, "I shave myself", "he shaves himself", etc. Since the -Xself pronoun is a direct object, all these reflexive verbs are transitive.

In the Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish, etc.) reflexive verbs use a form of "to be" instead of "to have" in the perfect tenses. That is not true of German, however.


Murray Douglas: No, one does not say "Ich bin ihn in die Stadt gebracht". Correct is "Ich habe ihn in die Stadt gebracht".

As I explained in the comment to which you are replying, German, unlike the Romance languages, does NOT use "to be" instead of "to have" to conjugate reflexive verbs.

And, as you yourself noted, your example is NOT an example of a reflexive verb to begin with.

Note that in German transitive verbs (those that take an object) are always conjugated with "haben" rather than "sein".

Furthermore, reflexive verbs always take an object -- namely, the pronoun (himself, herself) on which the reflexive verb is acting. So reflexive verbs are always transitive and so always take "haben" rather than "sein".

Note also that some German verbs are not inherently reflexive but can be used reflexively on occasion. So, for example, the verb "bringen", which you used in your example, is NOT inherently reflexive. But you can use it reflexively to say "I brought myself", as you did in your example.

However, note that it is NOT necessary in your example to include the word "selbst" to convey the reflexive meaning. Also correct would be "Ich habe mich in die Stadt gebracht". (The word "selbst" adds emphasis that it was you yourself who acted, but it is use of the pronoun "mich" that conveys the essential reflexive meaning.)

In contrast to a verb like "bringen", some German verbs are inherently reflexive -- that is, (almost), always used reflexively. For example, "sich beeilen":
Ich beeile mich = I hurry
It would be wrong to omit the reflexive pronoun and write just "Ich beeile" or "Ich beeile selbst".


So when a verb is being used reflexively in the past tense I would say, "Ich habe mich selbst in die Stadt gebracht."

Does that mean that when I bring him or he brings me (not really reflexive anymore, is it?) we then switch to saying, "Ich bin ihn in die Stadt gebracht."?


warum wird "was brachte dich in diese Stadt" nicht akzeptiert, aber "was hat dich in diese Stadt gebracht" wird?


was brachte sie in diese stadt


That's correct, provided you capitalize "Sie" (as well as "Was" and "Stadt," but especially "Sie" since lowercase "sie" means "her" or "them" rather than "you").


was brachte dich in diese stadt


That's a correct translation.


Does "Was hat Dir hier gebracht?" make any sense? (I don't know, maybe I should use Dich... no clue...


You should use 'dich': Was hat dich hier her geführt? 'gebracht' doesn't really fit.

  • 1616

I am trying to understand dich. Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof. ;-)


There's no reason for the use of a dative personal pronoun. So the default is accusative.


As a native English speaker, there's never a reason to use the dative ;-)


Why does it not accept 'City' instead of 'Stadt' ?


City is no german word


Do you have to change the verb to the perfect tense?


It sounds more natural in spoken German to use the perfect tense here.


Is this necessary always wrong? Was hat euch an diese Stadt geführt?


an is the incorrect preposition here. If you used in it would be correct.


can you also say ''zu dieser Stadt geführt''?


Yes, but as mentioned in another comment it sounds like you reached the boundary of the city then stopped.


Was hat Sie in diese Stadt gebracht is given as a proper answer. My question is this: If you're using "Sie", shouldn't the sentence read: Was haben Sie.....? It seems wrong to combine "hat" with "Sie."


Was hat Sie ...? is fine.

The subject (the person or thing doing the bringing) is was, and Sie is the direct object in the sentence (the person who gets brought).

Verbs inflect according to their subject, not their object.


Perhaps that would be "what have you brought to this city" instead?


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?"

  1. You can't "arrive something" - you need a preposition.

  2. The question is "what", not "why".

  3. The question says nothing about arriving in the city, although it is obviously a related concept.

  4. 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".


How would "What did you bring to this city?" translate in comparison?


Was hast du in diese Stadt gebracht? is one possibility.


Would "Was haben Sie in diese Stadt gebracht?" work?


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.)


Your "Was führte dich in diese Stadt?" was my answer ........ but was rejected. I would say it is perfectly valid, particularly in a written statement, where the bias towards the perfect tense is dropped. I reported it.


Warum, bitte, wird :Was brachte dich in diese Stadt ? nicht akzeptiert?


Shouldn't it be "dieser Stadt" because "in" is a dativ preposition?


Please see MuratDuranTr's question above


in is a two-way preposition not exclusively a dative one.


The suggested version was "Was hat Sie in diese Stadt gebracht?" If so, why wouldn't my "Was hast du in diese Stadt gebracht?" work?


The subject of the sentence is "what". To mine your firm correct, it needs to start, "Was hat dich..." I believe your confusion is that "Sie" is the same in the nominative and accusative cases, but "du" changes to "dich".


geführt replace it with gebracht. ty


Both of those verbs are correct and accepted.


The dictionary hints are wrong. Can this please be fixed?


Is it unnatural to say "Was bringt euch zu dieser Stadt"?


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)"


Ich bin der beste Deutsche hier ihr Bauern


why not " zu diese stadt?"


"Zu" requires the dative case ("zu dieser Stadt"). Also, using "in" is preferable here since it clarifies that you actually entered the city, rather than just reaching its border.


I had "Was hat dich in diese Stadt gebracht?" and it was marked wrong. I couldn't fine "geführt" listed as a translation for "brought"


Why isn't "was hat dich zu diese Stadt geführt" accepted?


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".


Was hat dich hierher verschlagen? Geht das?


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?


Wieso ist "diese Stadt" nicht in dem Dativ Fall?


"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.


gebraucht was not included in the hints. Of course neither was gefuhrt. So Duo just put all random words in the hints just to purposefully screw everyone up. Nice.....


gebraucht = used
gebracht = brought


Oops, thanks. Sometimes it's just one tiny letter, right?!


Why not "in dieser stadt" like "in der stadt"


"In dieser Stadt" would be talking about the single location "inside the city." Since we're talking about going into the city, we need to use the accusative "in diese Stadt." Use dative for talking about where something is located and accusative for talking about where something is going to.


The only suggestion in the tip is gebraucht. Why is this not accepted?


Cathy, don't confuse "gebracht" and "gebraucht":
gebracht = brought
gebraucht = used


The problem here is the verb 'to bring ' throws the meaning of this English sentence. That is made obvious by the use of the German verb 'to lead' in the translated version. I agree with the German version but it is not a translation of brought.


John, I understand what you're saying. On the other hand, consider the following two English sentences:
1. What brought you to this city?
2. What led you to this city?
Of those two, I'm sure you would hear 1 more often than 2.

In other words, although it is not a word-for-word translation, it seems to me that the DL English sentence we are given here is an idiomatic translation of the German we are given.

But how would you translate the German here, if not using "brought"?


Könnte man hier auch gebracht sagen?


Possibly, Joseph; but only if you are enquiring about the mechanics of getting to the city. This is seldom the case. Normally when this question is asked it is to examine the motive of the newcomer; the life circumstances leading to the decision to come......... for which Duo's suggestion is very fitting.

That said, "jemanden dazu bringen, etwas zu tun" is "to make someone do something" so don't ditch the idea entirely. "Was hat dich dazu gebracht, in diese Stadt zu kommen?" would mean "What made you come to this city"


Vielen Dank! Das ergibt vielen Sinn!


'Was brachte dich in diese Stadt?' ?


Omg.. nobody talks like that..


Why "Was hat dich in dieser Stadt geführt" is not accepted? The "in" should make the article Dative but it seems not


No, dative is wrong here. The German "in" can take either dative or accusative. It takes accusative when it describes motion "into" a place, as it does here.

There is a whole group of German prepositions (not just "in") that can take either dative or accusative. For example:

an, auf, hinter, in, neben, über, unter, vor, zwischen


Thank you. Now I understood completely :-)


So, is the formal way of saying this "hat Sie?" "Haben Sie" was countex


I tried to write "Was hat dich in dieser Stadt gebracht?" What is wrong with that sentence? Is "gebracht" accusative?


You need accusative here. Not because of "gebracht", but because after the preposition "in" you use the accusative when the German "in" means "into" -- that is, when there is motion to or into a place. So: "in die Stadt" here, not "in der Stadt".


Who made these sentences? Whoever did only accepts one answer: their How annoying...

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