I'm a native Dutch speaker, its the same in Dutch. "Geht ihr?" could be literaly translated as "go you?", which would mean "Are you going?" Let's suppose you're at a party and see two people getting ready to go home. You could ask them "Geht ihr?" as a way to initiate a last conversation with them.
Yes, I believe that is correct. Ihr is also a familiar form as I understand it but plural, so it's not the way you'd ask the board of directors, or distinguished personages. "Gehen Sie" would serve there, unless you also had to add in a bunch of honorifics. Sehr geehrte, Doktor, Professor Muckedy Mucks gehen Sie?
I think it's a moreover narrow "You going?" Gestured indirectly at someone you don't know too well.. Like a voice through the wall kind of deal.. This phrasing makes more sense to me than "Do you go?" Frankly, using do seems unnecessary to match their Lingo and this should be corrected..
I gave her a lingot, because I am new to the community, doing my first 30 day streek, and this seems relatable, Honestly if I could confer more directly with other moderators It'd be interesting to see how we could better integrate into the software.
I suppose that's why the comments section exists.
Working with "wir" or "sie" we are told that when we see these words we are to remember they are plural, and that is the way we know how to write or speak the following verb.
I'm not sure who tells anyone that.
I generally tell people to memorise verb forms together with their subject, e.g. ich bin, du bist, er ist, wir sind, ihr seid, sie sind -- so that if you hear wir you automatically know that the verb form is sind because you've heard wir sind so many times.
Not because wir is plural or anything like that.
So the plurality is important.
Now we have to ignore the plurality when we want to use "ihr?"
Yes. Exactly. Ignore plurality completely. Just think of whether the subject is ich or whether it's du or .... Just learn six separate forms.
Geht ihr? = Go you? I translated it in English as You go? With an inflection, that means "are you off?" colloquially. When i get up to leave, dad will usually say "You going?" He doesn't need to say "Do you go?" which doesn't even make sense in English, so why is You go? Incorrect seeing as they want an English translation, German translations must be correct, so why can't ours at least make sense? Go you?/ you go? for us, same meaning! Daft
I answered "are you going" which was wrong.
"are you going" is an accepted translation for this sentence.
If you received an error message, the most likely reasons are (1) you made a typo which you did not notice, or (2) you had a listening exercise ("type what you hear", i.e. in German) but you translated into English instead.
If you would like help finding the error, a screenshot would be helpful -- please upload it to a website somewhere and tell us the URL.
When we start learning a new language, our brains have difficulty with sorting out the sounds. That's natural. It takes a while to develop an "ear". I just now listened to both the "male" and "female" voices speaking this sentence, and I assure you that both say "ihr" very clearly.
The vowel in "er" is a short "e" sound, like "eh", while the vowel in "ihr" is a long "e" sound, like "ee". The "r" doesn't sound anything like an English "r", but more like "uh", so "er" is "eh-uh" and "ihr" is "ee-uh". I realize that none of this may be of help to you if your English is not strong.
Anyhow, keep listening, it will come.
geht ihr means "are you going?" while gehst du means "do you go?"
Geht ihr? can mean "Are you going?" (right now) or "Do you go?" (regularly).
Gehst du? can also mean "Are you going?" (right now) or "Do you go?" (regularly).
The difference is that ihr refers to several people while du refers to one person.
It's like the difference between "we" and "I", or between "they" and "he".
"Wir" gets "gehen." "They" gets "gehen." Why not "ihr"??????
Why not "he sing."????? It's also singular!
The verb ending doesn't depend on singular/plural.
So just because "I" and "you" have the same verb ending in English, or just because wir and sie have the same verb ending in German, doesn't require that "he" or ihr have the same verb ending.
I learned that plural subjects get the "en" verb ending.
Then you learned incorrectly.
Third-person plural subjects get -en. For example, die Jungen trinken or sie singen.
First-person plural subjects get -en: wir haben Hunger.
But ihr is neither of those.
Not all plural subjects get -en.
I still see it as "gehen ihr?"
Then that would be wrong.
"We," "they" are going ("gehen"); "Y'all" also are going.
In English, we use "are" for all of those.
We even use the "plural" word "are" for "you" when speaking to one person.
But German isn't a code for English. It doesn't use the same word everywhere where English uses the same word.
For du, the verb needs -st, and for ihr, it needs -t. Not -en for either.
Regardless of whether English would use "are" there.
Du bist ein Mädchen, das uns allzusammen Notizen schreibst. Wenn wir alle deine Freunden wären, und du mit uns ins Kino zu gehen vor hättest. Vielleicht sagst du: "Geht ihr mit mir ins Kino heute Abend?" Geht ihr, Gehen wir, Gehen sie, Gehen Sie. Wir sind froh daß du fragst. It's just the way it is, but I think you already have figured that out.
I'm not a native speaker so probably some errors here.
I must be forgetting something! "Ihr" is "you PLURAL," right?
Then it should be "Gehen ihr?"
No, because the verb ending doesn't just depend on whether it's singular or plural.
ihr verbs have a -t ending, as in ihr trinkt, ihr geht, ihr habt. (Exception: ihr seid.)
What has plural got to do with it?
ich verbs have -e.
du verbs have -st.
er/sie/es verbs have -t.
wir verbs have -en.
ihr verbs have -t.
sie verbs have -en.
The endings depend on the subject... not on whether the subject is singular or plural or male or female or left-handed or atheist or freckled or anything else.
sein "to be" is irregular -- there it's
- ich bin
- du bist
- er/sie/es ist
- wir sind
- ihr seid
- sie sind
So the endings aren't the normal ones (though you can see the -st for du in bist), but still: every subject pronoun has its own verb form, except that wir and sie are the same.
To mizinamo: Please tell me WHY, if "ihr" refers to multiple people, we wouldn't treat it the way we do with "wir" and "sie."
The short answer: because history.
The long answer:
I can try to do so as soon as you have explained me WHY, if "he" refers to one person, we wouldn't treat it the way we do with "I" and "you" -- "I sing, you sing", so why not "he sing"? Why doesn't it use the same form as the other singular pronouns?
It doesn't work like that -- the verb forms aren't divided up into "the singular form" and "the plural form". In either language.
Originally, each person had its own verb form, like in Latin (amo amas amat amamus amatis amant) or Greek (λύω λύεις λύει λύομεν λύετε λύουσιν). So there were six separate verb forms and no reason for any of them to be like any of the others.
Have a look at the conjugation of singan at Wiktionary, for example: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/singan . "Unfold" all the conjugation tables there.
In Old Dutch, Old English, Old German, and Old Saxon, singan is the form that the verb took that later turned into Modern Dutch zingen, Modern English "sing", Modern German singen, and Modern Low German singen.
You can see that while Old English and Old Saxon had merged the plural forms into one (singaþ, singad), Old Dutch and Old German still kept them separate: singon, singet, singunt and singem(es), singet, singant, respectively. If you know Latin, you'll see that those old forms still resemble the Latin forms: cant-amus, cant-atis, cant-ant -- since Latin and the Germanic languages both descend from the same language (Proto-Indo-European). (You can find the Proto-Germanic form of the verb at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/singwan%C4%85 , if you're interested. That's the one from which the various Old Dutch/English/German/Saxon forms derive more directly.)
So there's no reason inside Old Dutch or Old German to treat any of them like any other: they are three clearly separate forms.
Fast forward several centuries and we get to Middle Dutch, Middle English, and Middle High German: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/singen
Since Old English had already merged the plural forms into one, it's not surprising that Middle English only had one form as well. But you can still see three separate forms in the singular: ich singe, þou singest, he singeþ. Not that far from what you'd find in the King James Version of the Bible: I sing, thou singest, he singeth.
Old Dutch and Old German had three separate forms for the plural -- these had merged into just two distinct ones in Middle Dutch (singen, singet, singen), while Middle German still had wir singen, ir singet, sie singent. The unstressed vowels had turned to shwa, so Middle German wir singen, sie singent are a lot more similar than wir singem, sie/sio/siu singant with the full -a- vowel in the final syllable.
Note also that Old High German still had three distinct forms for "they", depending on whether it was masculine plural, feminine plural, or neuter plural. But with unstressed final vowels turning into shwa, sie, sio, siu all ended up sounding like sie.
On the journey from Middle Dutch to Modern Dutch, the plural forms all got merged into one: we now say wij zingen, jullie zingen, zij zingen. All the same, like in English or in modern Low German. I suppose that was by analogy: they took a cue from you and thought "well, if two of them are the same, why not make the third one the same as well?".
But Modern German just dropped the -t of the sie singent (and turned a two-syllable si-e into a one-syllable sie) and we now have wir singen, ihr singt, sie singen. (You may still come across the two-syllable verb form ihr singet in older language, e.g. traditional songs or poems.)
So the wir verb form and the sie verb are now coincidentally the same -- after having been different for literally thousands of years.
They haven't been the same for long enough to have exerted any pressure on the ihr verb form to "conform".
According to the Germans.
Germans never think about this sort of thing.
No more than English speakers think about why there's an -s at the end of the "he/she/it" forms but not on any of the other forms. Or why that -s is "missing" on "he can, he may, he shall, he must". Or why we say "I have, he has" and not "I have, he haves". Or why "I was" has an -s but "you were" has an -r.
(Fun fact: the original form had an -s- or -z-, but German turned this into -r completely in the past tense of this verb and English did so partly. But German still has an -s- in the past participle gewesen.)
They just speak the language the way they heard it from their parents.
When will German merge the ihr verb form into the same one that wir and sie ended up merging into through sound changes?
Probably around the same time English speakers get rid of the -s and just have one verb form for all persons. "I sing, you sing, he sing, we sing, you sing, they sing. I is, you is, he is, we is, you is, they is".
Like in Afrikaans: ek sing, jy sing, hy sing, ons sing, julle sing, hulle sing. ek is, jy is, hy is, ons is, julle is, hulle is.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
P.S. Sorry if that came off patronising, but I'm not sure how to explain.
I also can't quite conceive why just because two forms are coincidentally the same, the third one "must" be the same, and if it isn't, there must be some (sinister?) explanation for it.