"I am not going to wait for you!" is the correct translation in English. It was accepted but the translation listed as THE correct answer should be changed. If it meant wait as in the sense of waiting on tables (which it does NOT), it would be "I am not going to wait on you!" in English.
you can wait for a bus or you can wait on someone in a restaurant (ie serve them).
I just compensated a downvote for you by someone who probably couldn't understand what you (both) were talking about.
Apparently, in American English, a waiter can "wait tables", even though the etymology of waiter is quite literally someone who waits until his service is needed:
I'm not an English native but i doubt that "the waiter waits on a person" can mean "serving" (or is it a regional expression?). And "wait after someone" would not be proper English at all - please correct me here!
So there is no ambiguity here, and it means at the most "stand by for you".
Generally in English, when a waiter is waiting, they are actually working - refilling your drinks, taking your order, etc. I understand how this could be confusing, but it's what it actually is. An alternate definition from Google dictionary for "wait" is "act as a waiter or waitress, serving food and drink."
"a local man was employed to wait on them at a table"
You can definitely "wait on" someone, as per the expression "wait on someone hand and foot". It means to be their servant, or just their waiter if that is the right context.
Actually, it is just a poor translation from Romanian to English - in Romanian we say "aștept DUPĂ tine", which is literally translated "wait AFTER you", so the one who created this course is clearly Romanian... :op
I don't understand why there are two future tenses in Romanian /: Can someone explain the difference?
Actually, there are 3 future indicative tenses in Romanian, and their grammatical function is the same. They are often referred to as Future 1, Future 2, and Future 3. Examples:
Mâine voi sta acasă. Tomorrow I shall stay at home.
Mâine o să stau acasă. Tomorrow I shall stay at home.
Mâine am să stau acasă. Tomorrow I shall stay at home.
There is no significant difference in sense. There different forms are there due to the historical development of Romanian (some Romance languages, e.g. French, have an "immediate future" tense, which formally corresponds to the formation of the first form above). If it seems redundant to have different forms, consider that English is similarly redundant. E.g. there is very little difference in meaning between "I will stay (at) home tomorrow"; "I will be staying (at) home tomorrow", and "I am staying at home tomorrow."
Moreover, there are two other two future tenses in Romanian, the future perfect and the future in the past, but these are separate sujects.
Can this possibly mean: you are going to wait first, but I am not going to wait second? Unlikely; more likely another bad choice of sentence to illustrate the use of the future tense in Romanian.