Er kauft die Zeitung = He buys (is buying) the newspaper. Er bezahlt is he pays/is paying [for].
I hope that helps. :0)
Yes, "He pays for the newspaper that's delivered to his neighbour's house." Whereas, "He buys the newspaper at the shop and reads it on the bus to work."
Or, "My mother pays for my swimming lessons and I buy candy with the money I save."
My mother buys my swimming lessons and i pay for candy with the money i save.
I'm English, at least the kind i speak, to buy and to pay for mean exactly the same thing. As does to purchase. It does not imply you are purchasing for yourself. That is what the phrase "buy for myself" is for. To buy is to pay for, to purchase is to buy. It means the exact same thing in English, and should be accepted.
The newspaper example is better, as in that sentence the shades of grey in difference between meanings does provide clarity on whom is receiving the money and newspaper, but this is an edge case, and it would be more common to say that "He buys the newspaper for his neighbor."
'To buy' & 'to pay for' do not mean exactly the same thing. You can pay for things that you do not buy or purchase. You can pay for your own or others' mistakes, but not buy them. 'You'll pay for that!'
More generally, buying means obtaining ownership or possession of something, whereas paying for does not necessarily entail transfer of ownership or possession.
I think buys implies that you are directly getting an object for money. When you pay (for) the newspaper you pay to a company, that then brings you newspapers each week..
There is no difference in meaning in English between "to pay for" and "to buy" and "to purchase", except in weird edge cases caused by some forced and very strange phrasing where the change in words still do not alter meaning but do alter some related implications. They are as different as "red" and "crimson". Perhaps once upon a time there was more of a gap in meaning, but I'm modern (at least modern American) usage there is zero actual difference. They are synonyms. They all mean "to provide money in exchange for goods or services" they might be different in German, but they aren't different in English.
There is definitely a difference in meaning and usage between 'pay' and 'buy' in English. There are plenty of instances where swapping the words would be nonsensical too.
«I paid $4 for that» vs «I bought that for $4»
«I'll pay you back» vs «I'll buy you back» ??
«I got paid this week» vs «I got bought this week» (yikes)
There's also a very clear difference in;
«I'll pay for it later» vs «I'll buy it later»
«I want to buy a new phone» vs «I want to pay for a new phone» lol
They adhere to different rules so you can't just say they're the same and use them interchangeably. I imagine the same applies in some way to German, which is why they're making the distinction.
There is a clear difference bewteen pay and buy. You can pay for something without buying it. "I paid for Carla's lawyer". "I paid the rent".
All Hoch-Deutsch including the lady who reads them out, all say it like "air"
The man who reads it out, maybe not.
No they aren't. "Air" rhymes with "bear", but "ear" rhymes with "beer".
It depends on the context. He might pay the newspaper (or more pedantically, the newspaper company) for placing an advert, or for a copy of a photo that appeared in the paper. Anyway, Duolingo accepts "He pays the paper" as correct.
" In many cases, zahlen and bezahlen mean the same and may be used interchangeably:
Sie haben die Miete noch nicht gezahlt/bezahlt. Das Museum hat zwei Millionen für das Bild gezahlt/bezahlt.
Sometimes, there is a difference in register; otherwise, it is often a matter of personal taste when to use which. However, there are some cases where a more-or-less clear difference exists.
You can’t use (at least not in standard language) zahlen with a person as the direct object:
Sie macht lieber alles selbst, statt einen Handwerker zu bezahlen. Ich bezahle dich nicht dafür, daß du Löcher in die Luft guckst!
(Exception: If the person is not the recipient of the payment, but the item that is being paid for, i.e. a slave.)
Bezahlen may be used to indicate completion:
Ist die Waschmaschine bezahlt? – Nein, er hat erst einmal nur hundert Euro gezahlt/bezahlt und zahlt/bezahlt nächste Woche den Rest.
On the other hand, zahlen is more general:
Firma X? Ja, die zahlen gut.
(Although bezahlen isn’t impossible here.) It may also be preferred when talking about who’ll pay in the end:
Dafür zahlt doch wieder die Allgemeinheit. Greift zu! Ich zahle. (= My treat.) "
Duolingo's answer of "He is paying the newspaper" doesn't make any sense. You can't pay the newspaper. You can pay for a newspaper or you can buy a newspaper.
Yes, i thought that too, for an advertisement. Feels like there's a missing 'for' in this phrase. Normally, you pay the shop keeper for the paper, not the paper itself. But all good, the discussion helps me learn
Why it sounds so much as "bezahlst" when it's speaking fast? I clearly hear the "st", but when it's speaking slowly everything is okay.
I got it wrong because I heard bezahlst, too. Exactly like you with the fast and slow.
There is a definite pronunciation problem! both her Ihr and Er sound the same! I always have to guess and 50% of the time I get it wrong!
So, is he paying the newspaper (for some unknown purpose), or is he paying for it? Do the two sound the same in German?
"he pays for the newspaper" is accepted "he purchases the newspaper" is not
how would you express "he purchases the paper" in German, and why should it be different?
I got 'he paid for the newspaper' incorrect.. Can't understand the difference
The verb "bezahlt " is present tense.
The woman says 'er' as 'EER', and I thought it said 'ihr'. Is this just a mistake in the audio?
Because in English, it would be "He pays", and not "He pay".
Just as English has different words for "buy" and "pay for", so does German. In fact, they are slightly different meanings. For instance, Max goes shopping. Amongst other things, he buys a newspaper for his neighbour. When he takes the shopping home, he gives the newspaper to his neighbour, who then pays for it.
Because "paid for" is past tense, and "bezahlt" present. It should be "pays for", or possibly, "is paying for".
But the duo English translation says "he pays for the newspaper." I put "he's paying for the newspaper" and got it wrong. Duo has never specified between present and past tense before. And i can't imagine that they would use a fragmented sentence either.
I put he's paying for the newspaper, and got it wrong. Duo has never specified between past and present tense before, and i can't imagine they would use a fragmented sentence.
They(Duolingo) said it is: "He pays the newspaper."
As a native english speaker I have never heard of anyone ever paying a newspaper, there should be a "for" somewhere in the English answer
"Are you saying that the English sentence, "He pays the newspaper", doesn't make sense? Surely it does. If "he" wants to place an advert in the paper, or purchase a copy of a photo that has appeared in the paper, then we could quite rightly say in English, "He pays the paper". That would not be understood to mean giving money to the actual paper, but to the publishers."
Did you send you message before finishing it? All you have done is to quote my message. Perhaps you meant to explain why you agree or disagree with it.
Why not? Here are some examples, in English: 1) He pays the paper, to publish an ad. (Mr. Lamb's example) 2) He pays the paper, to NOT publish the McDougal story 3) He pays the paper, to publish inflated crowd size estimates.
I can keep going................
So how would you say that you paid for an advert? Would you say something like "I paid the newspaper publisher"? But really this is all beside the point, because (at least as I understand it) the German sentence cannot mean that, but only paying for the paper.
David, "Er bezahlt die Zeitung" can mean either "He pays for the paper" or "He pays the paper." Duo is right to accept both.
Context decides which of the two English sentences was meant by the one German sentence. Both the English sentences are grammatically correct and make sense. Statistically a lot more people pay for a paper than pay a paper. That doesn't make paying a paper incorrect or nonsensical.
Hallo case02, guten Tag! Please forgive my curiosity about your being a native speaker. What is your background in the English language?
I am a Native English speaker, and although everyone has put forth points(he pays the newspaper) that do exist (paying for ads, paying for the newspaper's assets), they aren't usually said this way, for example if you wanted to be specific on exactly what you gave the newspaper money for, you would say: "He pays the newspaper for an ad" not "He pays the newspaper" because although "he pays the newspaper" is valid English, it doesn't really describe what you're paying for, and requires a bit more brainpower to figure out because of the missing asset. My final point: Duolingo wouldn't give " he pays the newspaper" as a question on a "something-to-English" course, they might give a simpler " He pays the newspaper for an ad"
I was looking for a drill down into the Native speaker status, something along the lines of: I was born in X, lived in Y, used English for N years at Z level, went to W college, write professionally, study grammar formally etc
oh, sorry, I was Born in the United States in 2004(California) and lived there for two years I came to the south eastern coast state of North Carolina and I still live here.
I have no dialect(standard American English, so I never really use the word trousers)
I started learning English when I was born and spent 3-5 years getting to C2 level, and I have been using English at C2 level for 9 years(I am 13 years old)
I haven't gone to college(I am not old enough)
I am gifted/AP in English, meaning I can use English at a level 2-4 years ahead of my expected English level, I don't write professionally since writing isn't something I am known for.
I study grammar semi-formally.
I have 9 years experience with C2 Level English, mastering German so that I can maybe someday become a helpful Lurker or maybe even a Moderator of the EN-DE and DE-EN boards
What actually shows as the correct answer is; 'He pays the newspaper' and that is wrong.
"You used the wrong word. He pays the newspaper."
What? That doesn't make any sense. I'm imagining someone placing money on a newspaper and just leaving it there.
Are you saying that the English sentence, "He pays the newspaper", doesn't make sense? Surely it does. If "he" wants to place an advert in the paper, or purchase a copy of a photo that has appeared in the paper, then we could quite rightly say in English, "He pays the paper". That would not be understood to mean giving money to the actual paper, but to the publishers.