1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Er kocht, damit wir essen kö…

"Er kocht, damit wir essen können."

Translation:He cooks so that we can eat.

March 8, 2017



I imagined "He is cooking; damn it, we're eating, Conan!


why is it essen konnen instead of konnen essen


Because while infinitives such as essen go to the end of a clause, the conjugated/inflected verb in a subordinate clause goes even more to the end.

Here, we have a subordinate clause started with damit; this means that with wir können, the conjugated part können goes right to the back.

(It looks the same as an infinitive because the subject is wir, which might be confusing. It's perhaps clearer with a different subject, e.g. Er kocht, damit ich essen kann.)


that makes me wanna cry


You can say that again... when you feel like you know a little bit of German, you find out you're completely wrong...


This should be the German learners motto. Made me laugh when all I really wanted to do was cry. Ugh!


Can you please explain the essen part again, cause i didn't understand why essen is not conjugated


It's a bit like how we say "he eats" (with -s on "eats") but "he can eat" (no -s on "eat").

Short version: if there are two verbs in one clause (sentence part), then only one of them has an ending that depends on the subject, while the other will be either in the infinitive (dictionary form) or a participle.

So here, können depends on wir, and the other verb essen is in the infinitive.


Would "sodass" here work instead of "damit"?


Yes, would work too.


Could it be "He cooks, therefore we can eat"? In this case, "so" can be interchanged with "therefore" in American English. I know there are other words for "therefore," but can't it be used here?


But this sentence does not have "so", it has "so that".

"therefore we can eat" may mean the same as "so we can eat", but not the same as "so that we can eat".

damit is only "so that, in order to".

For "therefore", one option would have been daher (which would have required a different word order in the second clause).


Danke schön, mizinamo, for taking your time to explain this to me. I will need to study these "da-" words, as they are causing me undue problems! I always want to say "damit" means "with that," for example! There is a fine distinction between these "da-" words, it appears.


Oh, it means that, too!

Usually(?), the stress is different, though -- conjunction damit "so that, in order to" is daMIT, while preposition(?) damit "with that" is DAmit.


  • Ich gebe dir ein Messer; damit kannst du dein Brot schneiden. "I'm giving you a knife; you can cut your bread with that." (DAmit)
  • Ich gebe dir ein Messer, damit du dein Brot schneiden kannst. "I'm giving you a knife, so that you can cut your bread." (daMIT)

Sorry :(


thanks mizinamo for these examples, they DO clear the confusion i had on the meaning of damit.. a lingot for you


Great sentence examples! These two help clarify the difference a bit, especially because you capitalized the emphasized parts for each sentence. Danke, noch einmal.


Does damit translates to "so that, in order to" only when it is used as connection between two clauses?


Your sentence would be grammatically correct as "He cooks. Therefore we can eat." which sounds the same but is two sentences rather than one. That is because "therefore" is an adverb, not a conjunction, and so cannot be used to join two clauses in the one sentence as you have suggested.


is damit an adverb in this sentence ? because im doing the adverbs section on duoling


No, not in that sentence -- I'd say it's a conjunction there.

There's an adverb spelled the same way though.

So you may see a mixture of sentences using "this word".


There is no sound on this one - complete silence.


I feel like such a child fpr laughing when they say damit, because it sounds angry and cooking food to eat; ❤❤❤❤❤❤ he's cooking so we can eat.


he cooks so that we may/mighr eat


How do you sat damn it in german?


why can't it be 'thus' instead of 'so'?


Because that means something else.

Er kocht, damit wir essen können = He cooks, so that we can eat / He cooks, so we can eat.

The cooking is a preparation for the eating; it's done for the purpose of enabling us to eat.

"He cooks; thus we can eat" gives "he cooks" as a reason, rather than as something done for a purpose.

That could be daher in German but not damit.


Since 'Er' and 'Wir' are both in nominative form, does that makes this a reflexive pronoun?


No. A reflexive pronoun refers back to the subject of the sentence; it's equivalent to English "myself/yourself/etc." So since that subject is the nominative noun, a reflexive will never be in the nominative ("er," "wir," "ich," etc.). A reflexive pronoun is accusative or dative, so it looks just like the normal pronouns "mich/dich/uns/etc." or "mir/dir/uns/etc.," with the only exception being third person reflexive, which is "sich."

So basically a reflexive has ti have someone as the subject and then have the same person as an object. A reflexive with "kochen" would have to be "Er kocht sich" = "He cooks himself."


Can't I use "that/this is why" for "damit" or it is completely wrong in English? I am neither English nor German speaker.


No, that is not a good translation.

"that is why" would be darum or deswegen, but not damit.


oh, okay, thank you very much!


"So that we may eat" seems better form in English. The cooking doesn't give us the ability to eat, that already existed. It provides the opportunity to do so.


why this is not correct " he cooks in order we can eat" ?


why this is not correct " he cooks in order we can eat" ?

That's incorrect English -- "in order" can't be followed by a clause.

You can have "in order that" + clause or "in order to" + infinitive -- in this case, "in order that we can eat" would work.

("in order to eat" would imply "in order that he can eat"; the implied subject of the infinitive would be the same as the subject of the first clause.)


he cooks that we can eat is totally correct.

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