"Are you paying for the dessert?"
Translation:¿Tú pagas el postre?
Why is it 'por' and not 'para'? I thought por was used more to express a period of time.
Here por is used because there is an exchange...money for dessert. Also, your idea that para is used for time is faulty. Para is used for time when the time expresses a deadline...think destination. Por is used for time when expressing a period of time...think duration. Another case of "por" for exchange is when you say Gracias por venir, for example. You are basically exchanging your thanks for whatever you are thankful for.
Para v.s Por : there is a great Y-tube from lightspeed Spanish that helps clear up the distinction and the proper use of Para / Por
My wife would always use “invitar” here instead of “pagar”. She is a native spanish speaker, so I’m going to say this needs to be an option.
Yes, invitar, when it comes to things like paying something like dinner, drinks, etc. is similar to the English verb "to treat"
¿Me invitas a postre?
Hmm...dessert...are you treating? Are you treating me to desert?
What we WOULDN'T say in English however it the literal... Are you treating me desert or Are you treating desert for me.
Tú pagas por el postre is marked incorrect. Should it be? If so, when someone (who's buying a (toy) man) asks how to pay for it, and I say "Tú pagas el hombre" (you pay the man) how is the distinction made that I'm not just saying you pay for the man? Or is pagar only to pay for, and not to pay to?
In both languages, if you are paying a bill (or the check) in a restaurant, an invoice / receipt, the rent, a debt, etc. you can treat these items as a direct object, no preposition is needed.
I paid the check.
Pagué la cuenta.
He paid the rent.
Él pagó la renta.
Difference from Spanish, in English you cannot just say "I paid the bicycle" You have to say "I paid FOR the bicycle" In Spanish, you can omit or include the POR in such situations.
Ella va a pagar la bicicleta. (por is optional, usually not used)
She is going to pay for the bicycle.
If an amount of money is given, in either language, then this becomes the direct object and the item purchased is placed after the preposition por or for.
Ella pagó cien dolares por la bicicleta.
She paid 100 dollars for the bicycle.
Now regarding "paying the man"
I paid for the toy man. Pagué el hombre de juguete.
I paid the man. (I paid the man some money)
I paid 100 dollars to the man.
Le pagué cien dollars al hombre.
Le pagué al hombre.
The man is the indirect object in Spanish and must be proceded by "a" as with all indirect objects. When the man is a toy, the toy is a direct object and as it is not a living person or pet it would not require a "personal a"
It isn't necessary but it CAN be used. When it is used it is often for emphasis. In English, we might say YOU"RE paying for desert!? to mean, you never pay for anything! Now you're paying for desert. Just by adding the unnecessary pronoun, in Spanish, you can create a similar type of incredulity. You can also use a heightened tone, but even without the heightened tone, you create some emphasis. In any case, Duo should accept this sentence with or without the tú.
In Spanish, the present progressive is used for ongoing action. The assumption here is that it means are you going to pay for the dessert which would be future action. You could argue that if the person is in the act of paying then the present progressive could be used. But that is splitting hairs. Also, you do not want to use "por" because "pagar" means "to pay for."
Why is it incorrect to use pagan? The sentence does not especially indication whether you is singular or plural, and could refer to a group of people
para has no application in this sentence. I suggest you search the internet or watch a youtube video on "por vs. para"
Can direct translation be also "are you paying the dessert?"? Why there needs to be that "for"?