Translation:We eat to live, and live to eat.
The exercise is 'infinitives', living and eating are 'gerunds' I think that they will come later, some are interchangeable and others change totally the meaning of the sentence.
In Spanish (I don't know about French), verbs ending with "-ing" are in the Gerund tense. I think that comes later in the Duolingo course.
I was curious why "pour" is used here I think it is due to causation as discussed on this page: http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/preposition_pour.htm<pre>
Cause / Reason J'ai été puni pour avoir volé. I was punished for stealing. Ce magasin est fermé pour réparations. This store is closed for repairs.</pre>
I didn't try it but I assume "We eat for living and we live for eating" is a valid translation (but not as nice).
I am starting to realize that any time in english "to" is used for "in order to" or "to be able to" then "pour" is a good translation. Probably obvious but seems to be helping me.
Think of it as "for the sake of" and it helps you remember "pour". That's what I usually do.
I've noticed this myself, good observation (although I can't exactly verify it).
It seems like a big jump from for to in order to but that's how it is, I guess.
daveremy and northern guy, thanks, this is just the help I needed. Now if they ask me to write this in French, I may remember to use "pour."
I am bilingual English/Spanish and one thing that sometimes trips me up with French is that I forget to use a pronoun with a verb (in Spanish the pronoun is usually understood because of the conjugation of the verb). Here the pronoun "nous" is not used in the second part of the sentence. Can someone explain why, and perhaps another circumstance or two where a pronoun would not be used?
Think of how you would say a sentence with one subject and multiple verbs like this in English. If you were going to describe your plans for a day, it would be a bit odd and burdensome to say "I will wake up, I will cook breakfast, I will take a shower...." Etc. You would say "I will wake up, cook breakfast, take a shower..." Same idea in French. Not necessarily wrong to use the pronoun here, but pretty awkward.
You conjugate the first verb in a clause, the subject has not changed so the second conjugation matches the first in this case.
Thanks....after writing that I thought hold on I know why....didn't know how to go back and edit.
Because that sounds weird; you would say "we eat to live, and live to eat"
Aight, I said "we eat to live, and we live to eat" and was told I was incorrect for the second "we". Seems fair to me.
So my brain initially answered We eat for to live, and live for to eat. Of course that is completely wrong so i jumbled it a bit and got to 'We eat for live and live for eat'. That also is nonsense, so I dropped the 'for's and got to the correct answer.
However, I have no idea why this is the case. Maybe its simply an exception due to being an idiom or there are some rules to know when to use these prepositions(?)...
It's kind of like 'we eat for living, and we live for eating'. French uses the infinitive instead of the present participle very often, just something you have to internalise I guess. :)
So it is not necessary to add the "nous" again in the second sentence?: "Nous mangeons pour vivre, et NOUS vivons pour manger".
Isn't it "nous mangeons... et nous vivons pour manger"? Like in the exercise with the sentence "je l'import et je le vends" ("je l'import et le vends" is wrong)?
So a couple of prompts back, duo used "dîner" for the generic to eat and "manger" for to eat + an object. So by that previous prompt, would it not be "Nous dînons pour vivre, et vivons pour dîner." Is it interchangeable in this case?
Not in this case. "Dîner" is more directly equivalent to the English word "dine", which can sometimes be used instead of the word "eat" but not in every case, since they have different degrees of generality. I think it would be safer to use "dîner" in the same context in which one would use "dine".
I wrote "we are eating to live and living to eat" and got marked wrong, the correction said "we are eating to live and live to eat" which arguably sounds worse and less correct than what I wrote?