"Wir trinken, und du bezahlst."
Translation:We are drinking and you are paying.
36 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Is German's present tense ever used to refer to the future? Like how we might take the present progressive tensed sentence in the English translation to mean "we are going to drink and you are going to pay."
For the German sentence structure, is the use of the comma required in cases like in this example?
Yes, it can.
Perhaps this is something that happens every evening -- a repeated, habitual action, for which we would use the present simple tense: "We drink and you pay".
Leider wird "We drink and you pay" als falsch gewertet. Ich habe es gemeldet.
"zahlst" is also okay. It's nearly the same, I don't know how to explain this little difference, but I looked it up: "be" refers to the thing(s) they'll pay. In this case the drinks. "zahlen" as a substantive (capitalized) means numbers. "bezahlen" can be used in other expressions just like "dafür wirst du bezahlen" - "you'll pay for that". I would intuitively choose "bezahlst" in this case. I would us "zahlen" more in a restaurant and "bezahlen" when you have to pay a specific thing or a person. But the invoice I would "zahlen" no Matt for what it is. But that's my subjective opinion. Here you'll find a more useful explanation: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/11186803/What-is-the-difference-between-zahlen-and-bezhalen#:~:text=Bezahlen%20is%20used%20when%20the,personal%20object%20takes%20the%20dat.&text=Bezahlen%20is%20a%20money-transaction,du%20den%20Handwerker%20bitte%20bezahlen%3F"
It's because we make a little pause before saying the rest. Like putting emphasis. But normally the comma isn't required, your teachers prefers you not to use.
The sentence "you're paying for our drinks" is different from "you'll be buying our drinks", though.
You are paying for our drinks = Sie bezahlen unsere Getränke.
Is the "for" necessary? Or is it also ok to say: "You are paying our drinks"?
You will be buying our drinks. = Sie werden unsere Getränke kaufen.
Is the "be" necessary in the second sentence?
The "for" is necessary here because that's the English version of "bezahlen" (which you could also, vielleicht, translate as finance or fund), and because you're not paying the drinks (you're paying the cashier, directly, or the owner of the bar, ...)
to buy = kaufen, to pay = bezahlen. "We are drinking and you are buying", as fas as I know means: "Wir trinken und du kaufst." Korrekt?
In connection with drinks in pubs, “Tom is buying” can mean “Tom is the one who will pay for our drinks”.
In general, though, buy is best translated as kaufen.
That seems like a set of instructions or a sort of game plan. A better English sentence would be "When we are done drinking, you will pay".
Neither are a correct translation of the German sentence, though, which doesn't have a "when" and only says "trinken". Usually, the simplest answers are best.
[2019/05/02]
Wenn man zwei Hauptsätze miteinander verbindet, kann man ein Komma setzen. Früher musste man das sogar.
I s2g the male voice says "uns" or "unsd". Is it a bug or is it an allomorph (like 'ist' commonly being pronounced as 'is')?
I was taught that "zahlen" was to pay, and I understand all of the conjugations of the word (I got the question correct), I am just not understanding how we go from "zahlen" to "bezahlen". Where does the "be-" come from? Is is saying "you will be paying" and that is why the "be-" is there?
1000
You generally can use either zahlen or bezahlen to say to pay. There is still a subtle difference:
Ich zahle Steuern.: I pay taxes. For this general statement you use zahlen. Bezahlen is more the act of paying itself. Hopefully you're not the one paying generally in the pub ;-)
- 1000
The comma sepates two main clauses, actually the sentence is two complete sentences:
We drink. (And) you pay.
Then we write a comma between these clauses. It works with aber (but) right this way:
Du bezahlst, (aber) ich trinke.