Translation:I have had a hat since you have had a hat.
Thinking about this a little more, it seems correct. While it's not a literal translation from the German, it's an accurate one. Using the perfect tense in English is actually a present tense, which matches the meaning from the German sentence.
It's indeed correct. In English you tell when something began ("since"), while in German you look at the present situation. This is often confusing for Germans. If you say "I have lived in Germany since 1998", I would tend to assume that you're not living there anymore, because I would say "Ich lebe seit 1998 in Deutschland". "Ich habe seit 1998 in Deutschland gelebt" would mean that I'm currently not living there any more. Same thing with "for": "I have lived in Germany for 10 years" can easily be misunderstood by Germans as "for a (completed) period of 10 years in the past, but not extending to the present", because it seems very similar to "Ich habe für 10 Jahre in Deutschland gelebt" (which is a completed period that ended in the past).
I'm not a native English speaker. So if you assume that one is not living there anymore when he says "I have lived in...", then what about "I have had..."? Do you assume he currently still has or doesn't have?
What he was trying to say is that as a German you erroneously tend to assume that "I have lived .." carries the information it is no more like that because the German sentence "Ich habe ... gelebt" does. But although the two sentences structurally look equivalent their tenses are not. The English sentence, however, rather suggests that the period is not over but continues to the present.
@kid_of_old_man: that's what I was trying to say. In English the sentence strongly suggests that you are still living here.
Only Germans tend to misinterpret this, because with the German Perfekt it is nearly the other way round.
I understood the German side. What I wished to know was how English speaking people would think of if I say "someone has had something". Since Max. EM said "If you say "I have lived in Germany since 1998", I would tend to assume that you're not living there anymore". This is somewhat off topic though.
Thank you fehrerdef for your patience. Turns out Max. Em is a native German speaker. I thought he was a native English speaker so what he said confused me a little.
So we're in agreement, the English translation is still not correct; and the German interpretation is one of having had the hat in the past, but does not continue to have it. I thought the English would be I had had a hat, since you had had a hat. or more probable... *I'd had a hat since you'd had a hat." and leave it completely ambiguous. :-)
What you explain would, in English be, "I had lived in Germany for 10 years" which would mean you no longer lived there. "I have lived" with have being in present tense the understanding is that you are still living there. So the question is which would be correct in English. Is this understood as you no longer have a hat (ex: no longer live in Germany) then it should be "I had had a hat, since you had had a hat." or more likely in English, "I'd had a hat since you'd had a hat." Or what is written is correct if it means you now have a hat and so does she. So which is it in german? How would one write in German, "I have a hat, since you have a hat?" Would it be more understood like, "Ich habe einen Hut, weil du einen Hut hast?"
This is all still very confusing. I'm hoping for some more clarity.
This sentence makes no sense to me. "I have a hat since you have a hat" is accepted as a correct answer...
Oh, as of January 5, 2019, "I have a hat since you have a hat" is NOT ACCEPTED.
Yeah, I thought that was the answer, too. But, now I'm seeing how it's wrong. It's all in the word "seit" (since). Seit can be either a preposition or a conjunction. In this case, it appears as a (sub) conjunction since the verb is at the end of the sentence.
Seit = Since, As of (a time reference, not for "because"). "We haven't talked since last Friday."
Da/Wiel = Since, Because, As, For, Due to the fact...(a cause of...not a time reference). "Since you are rude, you must leave."
Now, it can be reasonable to say, "Ich habe einen Hut, WEIL du einen Hut hast" - "I have a hat since (because / due to the fact that) you have a hat." Maybe we are best friends and like to wear similar things together, or maybe you wearing a hat made me think, "Oh yeah, a hat would be nice for me, also." But, no matter why, this phrase is claiming that I got myself a hat just because you had gotten one. I totally understand why this translation isn't accepted in Duo, now.
"Ich habe einen Hut, SEIT du einen Hut hast." - "I have had a hat since (for the same amount of time) you have had a hat." Apparently, we got our hats at the same time.
When you apply the time reference of SEIT (since a moment in time) to the phrase the English translation of "I HAVE HAD...since you HAVE HAD..." just makes sense.
And, that's my 2 cents...
Thanx EdTyrone, your explanation puts the clarity in perspective. A more correct English translation would be, "I have had a hat ever since you have had a hat". Some times replacing seit with "ever since" makes it more clearer.
Thank you EdTyrone. I think you're the only one who's ironed out my confusion.
Wonderful breakdown. I got it wrong too and I think this was a cool exercise to remind us not to translate word for word but look instead at the nuances behind the phrases. Many of us know that SEIT means "since" but forget the specific contexts in which the words work in each language separately. Thanks for clearing the picture.
Thank you for this explanation. The comments before this one were super confusing, but now I actually get it.
While that's a literal translation, it's not a natural one in English in my opinion.
It's not ungrammatical. "Since" can be used to mean "because". e.g. Since you're not interested, I won't tell you about it. No reference to time there.
What's more, beyond being grammatically correct, such sentences are not uncommon in every day conversations, though the register tends to be rather informal, e.g. Since you're going, I'm going. -- With stress put on the pronouns.
As far as I know though, the German word "seit" is NOT used to mean "because". So while "I have a hat since (because) you have a hat" is a reasonable English sentence... it's a downright terrible translation of "Ich habe einen Hut seit du einen Hut hast". And, like Randonneurs was trying to point out, makes it sound like the "since" in the sentence means "because", not "from the time I got my hat and onwards".
You are right in stating that the German "seit" does NOT mean "because".
However, the English "since" has (at least) two meanings: "because" and something like "from that point in time". The latter is exactly the meaning of the German "seit", so it is indeed a valid translation.
True, conjunctions like da suggest causation to form that kind of sentence. However it seems like seit in the lesson sentence refers to time. The translation is more like I have had a hat since you have had....
Definitely agree with you, we need some proper english natives here to be sure. I am no native, but having learned english in a pretty natural way at an early age and reading that sentence, the FIRST thing that comes to my mind is to regard the word "since" in the meaning of "because". And I know that the word "since" has two meanings, but you cant just put it into any kind of sentence, because language is not that straight-forward. I might be wrong, but I think there has to be a certain type of structure of the sentence for the word "since" to have the meaning related with time. Either way, there's something fishy with DL's proposed translation, it doesn't sound natural.
The use of "seit" as in this sentence. The verb moves to last position. Practise some more to get used to the conjunctions that require that shift.
In dependent clause of a sentence where there is a conjunction , verb moves to the last position of the dependant clause.
For more info refer tips of conjunction chapter on Duolingo website
We haven't. But this is more a matter of translation than tense. Clearly this exercise shows that in order to comunicate this specific message you can use present tense in German but it's past perfect in English. Another example could be all those phrases written in simple present tense in German but are translated as present progressive in English, since that tense doesn't really exist in the same way we know it, but they can express an activity currently being done. This particular phrase actually tries to make us understand concepts and language conception in German rather than just doing the mechanical work of going word by word.
The English translation doesn't make sense to me. You would normally use the past simple tense after "since" in English. That's why I don't quite understand the meaning of this sentence in German.
and neither did 'I have a hat since you have had a hat' because you have to write 'I have had a hat since you have had a hat'
Sort of. It didn't accept my contractions when I tried. That's why I asked.
I know you can't tranlaste word for word, but this English translation is not natural. It may work grammatically, but I know the same goes for most langauges. Some sentences just don't sound right. No one in their right mind would say, "I've had a hat since you have had a hat." Rather, "I've had a hat, since you had a hat." Maybe, native speakers should be brought in to proof read answers? I've found that the English answers are mostly weird, and it throws me off at times when answering.
"I've had a hat since you had a hat" is not gramatical, your tenses do not agree (past perfect vs. past). The contraction makes that less clear. Correct: "I've had a hat since you'VE had a hat" but the second contraction's "'ve" is kind of eaten by the flow of syllables in conversation.
I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Is the word "since" here supposed to mean "because" or "as long as"? In other words, does the sentence mean that the speaker got a hat because the other guy got a hat, or that the speaker has owned a hat for the same amount of time that the other guy has owned a hat?
The latter. The German word "seit" never means "because", so any translation must at least include a temporal possibility in the sense of "since the point in time, when".
Would "I have had a hat as long as you have had a hat" be a reasonable translation? It seems like a more natural English rendering of the sentence to me, but it wasn't accepted when I tried it.
What the actual F is going on with this sentence... It is clearly clearly clearly in the present tense!!
Tenses are used differently in different languages. Although the German "Perfekt" is constructed like the English present perfect, its meaning resembles more the English past tense.
The German sentence speaks about something which has started in the past and is still ongoing. In German you use the "Präsens" (constructed analogously to the English present tense) for this, but in English the most natural way of expressing this is using present perfect, which has exactly the meaning that something that started in the past is either continuing to the present or at least has a specific effect on the present. Using the German "Perfekt" in this place would denote nearly the opposite, i.e. that it started and ended in the past.
Assuming the answer given is correct, the pedagogical issue with the lesson is occurs before any lessons on German tenses, so a student would not really be expecting a present perfect translation.
But that is exactly the lesson to be learned:
German and English use tenses differently. You can't always translate word by word.
Yes, I get that. The failing is that the lesson is inside one ostensibly on cases, and that it occurs quite a number of topics before as student is even allowed to practice other tenses. It isn’t a big deal — we learn by surprises, too. This one is just a bit unwieldy at this point in the navigation. You could throw in some surprise genetics and past perfect material, too if you wanted.
You are right. The problem is, that the construction of the Duolingo framework is not concerning grammatical issues at all, but is completely centered around teaching single words.
It is the course contributors who try to (more or less successfully) superimpose a structure teaching grammar issues.
Good explanation, Lingot given! :-) I asked a German friend about this and he concurred with that response. I asked him how you are meant to detect the difference since word for word this can be read as "I have a hat since you have a hat", but apparently the key is that in German the word 'seit', meaning 'since', only refers to a temporal comparison and cannot be interchanged with 'due to' or 'because', as it can in English. Thus, the use of 'seit' indicates that an action (the having of the hat) is being compared to something which was started in the past but yet is continuing to influence the state of the present. I think that this means that the sentence is in the English present imperfect tense: 'I have had a hat since you have had a hat'. Do we agree on this?
Personally I think the English is incorrect, whether from an incomplete understanding of the German, or the English I'm not sure... Either way, so far, nothing has been learned from this sentence other than it appears no one is really sure what is correct, including me. As stating, in English that two people have had a hat in the past, but not in the present isn't clear with "have had" as "have" in present tense, in my understanding means that they not only had it in the past, but have it now.
This is the point that may have been clarified about the German sentence; but, it's not clear that that is the right way to write it in English as apparently not everyone agrees, including me. It may sound wrong; but, as far as I know it should be "had had a hat" which means had in the past; but not the present. had in the past, had not now in the present emphasizing the past only.
No. The English translation is correct, because the German sentence stresses that it is still ongoing in the present! See my other comments.
OK, Got it; finally. So you're saying that in German the 'perfekt' tense in this sentence indicates that it is ongoing. I had gotten the idea in the posts that at least one person was saying the German didn't mean it was ongoing. When I read back over the posts, after reading your last post above, I finally get it. I think. :-} And now, I can't find the post where I got that from. (sigh) It's straight in my head now. The German "hat" with "seit" means English have had, in the past and still ongoing. In fact the German stresses by the use of present tense "hat" it is ongoing, and the word "seit" that it was also in the past. The first time I saw the answer, I realized exactly that; but, the posts confused me. I swear I read one that implied it was not ongoing. So, it may have been what I thought I saw; but, no longer see it that way, wieder. :-)
Dude! What sentence have you been looking at? We are translating the German "ich habe einen Hut, seit..." which is just in present tense, and it by actual meaning correspnds to English present perfect tense because seit+german present tense indicates continuity. Where did you get the idea of using "had had" in English? That would be for something like "habe einen Hut gehabt".
No, unfortunately I don't think you have grasped it. In English the present perfect suggests it s still ongoing. The German Perfekt would rather suggest the opposite! This is why in this sentence we don't have Perfekt, but Präsens (present tense).
yep, remember that the german is present tense. i think you may have forgotten that after reading through all these discussions concerning how germans are confused by english's perfect tense.
btw look at you guys' languages and their tenses. They can confuse people such as that dude here this much! While some other languages lack inflections altogether and work perfectly fine. Contexts are what really matter, contexts.
What if i did just the same but without the have had, sondern just have? I couldnt tell the time, future or past..
Please read the other comments on this page. German and English uses the tenses differently. Here a situation is decribed that started in the past and continues to the present. German uses Präsens (present tense) for this, but in English this is the perfect use of "present perfect".
"Ich habe einen Hut" IS "I have a hat". The thing here is that German grammar isn't identical to English in this particular case. "Ich habe einen Hut seit drei Jahren" means "I have had (and still have) a hat for three years", while, as far as I can tell, "Ich habe einen Hut gehabt seit drei Jahren" would be closer to "I had a hat the last three years, but I don't have it anymore".
Lolothe2nd, I believe it is because the word "since" in this sentence is not being used as an alternative to "because", but instead pointing out a period-in-time meaning of "since". In English when we use this meaning of "since" we used the past tense, whereas, in German, they use the present tense.
Example - I've LIVED HERE since (as long as) you HAVE LIVED here (past tense) v I LIVE here since (because) you LIVE HERE (present tense)
It took me a long time to understand why using the present tense was an incorrect translation. I had to read a lot of other comments to catch on. Hope this helps!
oh always in english when you use since you use have had? because in hebrew you can say just have
depends on the meaning of "since". If used temporally ("since the point in time, when"), like here, it needs perfect tense.
Things are different if it means "because", but this is not applicable here, because the German "seit" doesn't have that second meaning.
Feherdef, I just wanted to thank you for your endless patience regarding this question. In English, since can mean because (then you get the dative), but it can also mean "for as long as" and that is when you may need to understand that the present tense in German needs to be the perfect tense in English. I learned that with this question and it is a good thing to know. Thank you again for your clear explanations!
Looking at this forum, it looks like the English translation needs to change for it to become correct. I'd suggest "I have had a hat, for as long as you have had a hat". That way both sentences would mean the same thing.
While the suggested translation is also correct, what it taught me (reminded me) is that English uses since in two completely different ways and German has two different words for the two English meanings. Given that we need introducing to how German deals with continuing events (present tense as English past tense), "seit" is a really good entry point. DL cannot teach everything at once, so while I originally got it wrong, I now think "in German" correctly. Is it such a pain to be told we have made a mistake?
But, it isn't pedagogically correct, per my other comment. ;) There is no lesson/opportunity prior to this one where we learn about the present perfect. And there aren't any others very soon thereafter.
We have not yet learnt
I agree with Ben, I have a hat since you have a hat, in this case ..since..has a slightly different meaning, I have a hat because you have a hat
I got the idea of seit indicating time and therefore the translated tense has to account for that. What I am not sure is why isn't the second sentence in dative form? I thought "seit" asked for dative after it. Can someone please help? I thought it should be something like "Ich habe einen Hut, seit du einem Hut hast"
Copernicus already gave the correct answer. The dative is triggered when "seit" acts as a preposition, e.g. "seit drei Jahren" ("since three years"). But here "seit" is a conjunction, that means following is not a noun phrase, but a subordinate clause. And the cases in subordinate clauses are determined by the´function the words have in that clause, which has nothing to do with the "seit".
You can see it from the fact that you can make an independent sentence out of it "Du hast einen Hut". Of course, the order of the words changes when it becomes a subordinate clause, but all the ingredients keep their original cases.
And another hint: the "einen Hut" does not immediately follow the "seit", so it can't be the case that it is influenced by it, because prepositions directly precede their respective nouns.
I am not a native German speaker, but seit here relates to the verb (haben) not the noun (einen Hut). Er wohnt hier seit dem Ende des Jahres// Es ist zwei Monate seit er hier wohnt. Would any native speaker correct this attempt to explain the way seit works, but it works conceptually for how native English speakers understand "since" when it refers to time.
Not a native, but that's essentially right. "Seit" can be either a preposition (before a noun) or a conjunction (starting off a clause). If it's a preposition, that noun goes in the dative. If it's a conjunction, as it is here, you don't change anything, because conjunctions never affect cases. Other conjunctions ("weil," "nachdem," etc.) don't require certain cases, and "seit" as a conjunction doesn't either. As you said, "seit" has no relation to the nouns in this sentence; "seit" would only put a noun in the dative if it were immediately after the noun (i.e., if it were acting as a preposition).
So this has nothing to do with "since" having a time-related meaning here; this is just how conjunctions work-- they don't have cases.
Would this be like : "Ich habe einen Hut gehabt, seit du einen Hut hast gehabt"?
No. Tenses are used differently in English and German. For things that have started in the past and continue to the present English uses present perfect, but German uses Präsens ("present tense". If you would use the German Perfekt, however, it strongly suggests that it doesn't hold any more at the moment.
The English translation is probably best written as "I have had a hat ever since you have had a hat." In other words, I currently have a hat, and I've had it for as long as you've had one.
The German sentence uses tenses a little differently to express this idea, but that's what the sentence is saying.
The translation is totally wrong both in terms of Duolingo teaching process, cause we haven't yet learned anything about past tenses, and also because there is not a single sign of past in the English sentence
Concerning your second argument, please read the rest of the comments. "since", when used temporally, usually triggers present perfect in English.
The German sentence is present tense. Since you are learning German using English, knowledge of English (and all its tenses) is presupposed.
Indeed, apparently we are either learning something profound about German; or Duo is really messing with our heads! Apparently when certain sentences are written in a certain way, perhaps holding our tongue to our teeth, the present means the past, but no longer in the present. ::surprise::
What you learn here is that German deals differently with actions that have begun in the past and are ongoing to the present.
German uses Präsens ("present tense") for these, so you can say "Ich wohne hier seit 10 Jahren".
In English this is said using present perfect: "I have been living here for 10 years".
Btw., this is a good example for the fact that German Perfekt, though similar in construction, does not match English present perfect: "Ich habe hier 10 Jahre lang gewohnt" is nearly the opposite. That sentence tells that you now don't live here anymore!
I guess I'm still not getting my concept across. I'm saying the English translation is not correct, if I'm understanding you correctly. "I have had a Hat" in English says you had a hat since you have had a hat." before, and still do. I know had had sounds weird because most people don't know how to handle it and say I'd had which could mean either I have had or I had had. Whereas "I had had a hat since you had had a hat." says you had a hat before and no longer have one, and therefore it's the English translation that's wrong in this example. I'm not questioning, any longer the German 'perfekt' tense. I think this is where I'm having my confusion. The others are saying the opposite, and stating the English sentence is correct and we're not understanding the German. For my case this was true, especially since people are insisting it's have had and not had had. Unless I of course don't know how to speak English. We prefer to use contractions for that reason. "I'd had a hat since you'd had a hat." Is perfectly ambiguous, and we'd often say afterward, "Do you still have the hat?" if contractions are used.
The given English translation (see top of page) "I have had a hat since you have had a hat." is the correct translation of "Ich habe einen Hut, seit du einen Hut hast". Both mean the "having" started in the past and is still ongoing at present time. Period.
And, btw., "I'd had" means "I had had", not "I have had" (that would be "I've had").
I wrote about this to my German friend. He is a former teacher of German language in a high school class . He writes back that both translations are ok: I have a hat since you have a hat, and I have had a hat since you have had a hat. He couldn't believe the amount of discussion going on about this. He found it funny.
Being a German teacher doesn't help very much here, because the problem is within the English language. It seems that using the present tense strongly suggests that "since" is interpreted as "because", and this is definitely not a possible meaning of the German sentence.
Please read the other comments. "Seit" means "since" in the sense of "ever since," not in the sense of "because."
That's simply not true. Present perfect is very common in English for expressing that things started in the past and either continue up to the present or at least have importance for it. Read the other comments.
The german->english "I have had a hat ever since you have had a hat" was not accepted but I think it conveys the temporal meaning better than the "correct" solution. Without "ever" the "since" could be interpreted in the sense of "for the reason that" rather than an indicator of a time period which "seit" translates to.
Also shouldn't the english->german "I have had" be translated into the Perfekt "ich habe einen Hut gehabt", since the implication is that they still have the hats but the hat ownership began in the past? Why is Prasens being used for this?
Maybe you are right that the "ever" clarifies things. So try reporting it.
As I understood from several remarks by some native English speakers, however, using preesent perfect already gives a hint that the temporal meaning is meant.
In German, and this I know for sure, the "Perfekt" does not carry the same information as does the English present perfect, namely that something started in the past and still continues to the present. This is done using "Präsens" in German. If you'd use "Perfekt" that would imply that you had a hat, but now don't have it any more.
I see that the translation is inthe perfect but i don't understand how the german is.... There is no past participle to match the habe .
In German it is "Präsens". In German you use "Präsens" (present tense) to sescribe things that are ongoing to the present, even if they started in the past. In English you have to use present perfect for this, which is the case here.
The German "Perfekt" (present perfect) would be wrong here, because the German Perfekt would imply that it is not ongoing to the present.
Use of tenses is simply different between English and German, so you can't translate literally.
The English answer does not seem correct if "since" is used as a time reference. Since should not be followed by "have". "Since you came here, I have cleaned the house." It's not, "Since you have come here, I have cleaned the house." I would say the correct English would be: "I have had a hat since you had a hat." That being said, the sentence sounds clumsy.
Duo gives an awkwark English translation here. Two better ones come to mind depending on time vs. possesion emphasis: "I have had a hat ever since you have had a hat" (emphasis possesion) and "I have have a hat as long as you have had a hat" (emphasis time).
How can it be ,have had. We have not done any past tense yet. Surely it is I have a hat
In German "seit" is unambiguous, it only has the temporal meaning. The English word "since", however, is ambiguous, the disambiguation is done by choosing the tenses carefully. This is why the correct translation uses present perfect, although the German sentence is all present tense.
This question is not fair since we didn't learn tenses. I appreciate the explanations provided in this thread. But, I don't have a previous knowledge of the German language. So, this whole question seems unfair for the stage I am in.
Well, it is only a matter of English tenses. In German the sentence is present tense, which has been taught already. The word to learn is "seit". It is not a problem of the German language that the English (partial) equivalent has a second meaning besides the temporal one and you need different tenses to clarify its meaning in English. The German sentence is not complicated at all, and the knowledge of English is assumed for learners in this course.
I haven't learned this tense yet so I think that placing this sentence in this lesson is unfair.
Well, the tense in the German sentence is present tense, which has been taught already. And concerning the English sentence, knowledge of English in a course "German from English" is presupposed.
According to Google translate, I have a hat since you have a hat is the correct translation, not I have had a hat since you have had a hat. The tense of the verbs is present, not past. My answer is correct, yours is not.
You're trusting Google Translate, which is a machine with no real understanding of how language works, over Duolingo, whose exercises are individually written by humans? That seems awfully unwise.
Google Translate gave you a word-by-word translation of the sentence, which, while plausible-looking, is not how a German speaker would understand the sentence. "Seit" refers to time ("ever since"), not causation ("because"), so Google's translation is wrong.
Google Translate should not be your final source for correct translations, as it commonly makes glaring mistakes.
Google translate is definitely not a valid authority for grammar questions.
Usually google translate translates in a rather word by word manner, which doesn't work all the time, because different languages have different usage of the tenses. The fact that it is present tense in German does not necessitate it must be present tense in English as well.
I have a hat since you have a hat diese Antwort ist richtig bitte für die Zukunft notieren
Bitte lies dir die anderen Kommentare durch um zu sehen, warum diese Übersetzung zwar aus deutscher Sicht naheliegend scheint, nichtsdestoweniger aber falsch ist.
this sentence is so un-English a translation of the past verbs, habe and hast.