"We are eating a sandwich."
Translation:We eten een boterham.
Because wij gives anough information We eat sandwiches still tells us that we eat sandwiches
There are 3 'persons' of speech, the 1st one refers to the speaker or speakers, in english we have 'I' and 'We'. There is the 2nd one which refers to the one talked to, in english the singular and plural forms are identical: 'you'. In most languages that is not true! There are different forms for singular you and plural you in many languages such as: portuguese, spanish, german, french, dutch and so on... the verb to be is conjugated (changed) in different persons, english the verb to be is conjugated as 'are' in many different 'persons' which you just shouldn't expect in other languages. None of the languages i talked about are as simply as english
And don't let me even start talking about the 3rd person of speech, it's varies a lot in different languages, for example, latin languages don't have 'it', well, at least portuguese, spanish and french don't have. These 3 latin languages all have different forms for 3rd person plural indicating if it's male or female, like he and she in english, but these latin languages all have 'plural he' and 'plural she'. So yeah, you should not translate the basics of grammar, you should learn it, in many cases there are just no translations, it makes no sense
It could be, but it is more likely that all the people that are referred to by 'we' eat one sandwich of their own. It's the same as in English.
Or all of them just bite the same sandwich in a synchronized manner like some kind of dance or ritual.
I still don't know why I can't use ZIJN: "wij zijn eten..." Can someone explain this in really simple way?
Because the present continuous ("to be eating") uses a different construction in Dutch, which you will learn in a later skill:
- Wij zijn een boterham aan het eten.
The usage of the present continuous is also different: where English would use the continuous construction, Dutch usually simply uses the present simple. That is why the preferred translation here is "Wij eten een boterham".
You can use 'zijn', but than you will have to change the whole sentence. "we ZIJN een boterham aan het eten¨
Don't understand why "we zijn eten een boterham" is not correct. I understand that 'eten' is both eat and eating, but why am I not suppose to add 'zijn'?
eeten = (to be) eating eet = eat
so when we want to use present contious just add (+en) after the verb. is it correct ?
Eten is for plural and eet is for singular so... I, you, he, she, it eet and we, you (plural), they eten. (in other verbs you, he, she and it are singular form+t but because eet already has a 't' on the end you don't add a 't'
Eten (one 'e' at the beginning) is the conjugation for we, wij, zij (plural), ze (plural) and jullie. It could both mean they are eating right now and it could mean that they eat in general.
So is it correct to say that eten is the conjugation for present simple and present continuous?
Having studied afrikaans first, is eet also a Dutch word? Or is eet Afrikaans only and Dutch is only eten?
I eat--Ik eet; You eat--Je eet; He/ She eats--hij/ze eet; We eat--Wij eten; You eat--Jullie eten They eat--Zij eten
So now you know the wich one you shoul use for each pronoum right?