Translation:You are reading from the newspaper to a girl.
Can you use "aan" in this sentence? If so, where would it be placed?
It is possible, but you would have to change the word order:
- "Jij leest voor aan een meisje uit de krant", or
- "Jij leest uit de krant voor aan een meisje"
The second one is more natural and less ambiguous.
Why not "aan een meisje voor" like "aan haar voor" that was on a previous exercise?
Second this question. I thought the phrase was "aan [noun phrase] voor". Does it change depending on context?
Thanks for all the guiding! There's another example I saw before: "Ik lees een boek aan haar voor". In both examples you gave "aan" goes AFTER "voor", and in the one I include in this comment, it's not the case. Why? Thanks, once again!
Your sentence could be rewritten as "ik lees een boek voor aan haar" which is still correct but slightly less usual.
The sentence the previous poster gave as an example can also be rewritten towards a sentence that ends with "voor". Even though I am Dutch I am not sure why one solution is more common in some instances than the other and vice versa. I think it has to do with the lenght of the sentence and more specifically with the size of the seperation between 'voor' and 'lezen' (since it is one verb in Dutch, voorlezen). If the seperation is too large it is no longer clear that the "voor" belongs to the "lezen".
Is there any situation where you're more likely to say "Jij leest voor aan een meisje uit de krant"?
It's perfectly fine, but that word order is ambiguous, so I guess it's used less to avoid that ambiguity. Depending a bit on the emphasis, I think it will usually be understood as reading something to a girl from the newspaper (so a girl that is being pictured in the newspaper or reported on in the newspaper).
To clarify, are you reading aloud from the newspaper to a girl, or are you reading to a girl from the newspaper (i.e. a journalist), or potentially either?
It's reading from the newspaper to a girl. If "Een meisje uit de krant" were the subject, you wouldn't have "voor" in the middle of it.
Can someone please explain this sentence to me? Why isn't it "Jij leest voor een meisje uit de krant"?
My grammar has rusted a bit since high school, but I think I'll manage:
Subject: Jij Verb: leest voor (from 'voorlezen') Indirect object: een meisje Adverbial: uit de krant
In Dutch we split up verbs when they start with a preposition (so here you get the parts 'leest' and 'voor') and put the objects between them (in this case 'een meisje'). Adverbials are usually placed at the edges of a sentence, outside the split verb. So there you have this sentence.
'Jij leest voor een meisje uit de krant' is wrong because the object, 'een meisje' isn't between the two parts of the split verb.
Is there any difference in meaning between "Jij leest een meisje voor uit de krant" and "Jij leest een meisje uit de krant voor"? I'm trying to compare this to what I know of German, though I don't know how valid that is, as German places the verb's preposition strictly at the end of an independent clause.
Jij | leest | een meisje | voor | uit de krant.
Subject | Verb | Indirect Object | Verb Prefix | Adverbial
The main clause ends with voor -- uit de krant is a seperate clause consisting of an adverbial.
This variation may be used to emphasize that 'you' read aloud to a girl from the newspaper (not from the book, the magazine, etc.)
Jij | leest | een meisje | uit de krant | voor.
Subject | Verb | Indirect Object | Adverbial | Verb Prefix
The whole sentence consists of a main clause in this variation.
This may be considered a more neutral word order -- through which the general message is merely conveyed
In German, and also being a native speaker (:D) I find the German counterpart more logical xD
Du liest einem Mädchen aus der Zeitung vor.
Keep in mind the "einem", which indicates the dative case. Therefore, at the beginning, I was confused when I read "Jij leest een meisje" because I directly translated that to "Du liest ein Mädchen [...]" - luckily, German still has cases :)
No. That should be "je leest de krant voor AAN een meisje" (you read from the paper TO a girl).
Thanks for the explanation. I couldn't figure out if it was "voorlezen" or "uitlezen". Though in this second option, what would be the "voor" attach to? I was basically lost. So, a literal translation would be "you / read out / to a girl / from the newspaper". I mean: "voorlezen" is "read out"? or maybe "read to"?
"Voorlezen" means "read aloud". This may be used for something like reading a book to someone or also something like a reading in front of an audience. The preposition "to" is not necessary in Dutch, and is implied by having the person you're reading to as the object.
It is correct dutch, but the meaning is different from the english example. In the english sentence, you read something out of the news paper, like a sports article, to a girl like your daughter or the daughter of the neighbor. In your dutch sentence : "Jij leest voor een meisje uit de krant" the meaning is that you read something, anything, like a good book, to a girl you know out of the newspaper.
Does 'jij leest een meisje de krant' make sense? If not, why is 'voor uit' necessary?
It sounds a bit weird to me, but people will understand what you are saying.
"voor" is needed because if you read something to someone it is called "voorlezen", in this case "Jij leest voor", "uit" is needed to indicate from what you are reading.
Why is it not acceptable to translate this as 'you read the newspaper out to a girl'. It's quite a direct translation, but when you read out loud you can say you read the newspaper out to someone..
Because it is horrible English. 'To read out to' can be understood as 'to read aloud to', but not when you split the compound verb up by sticking the object in the middle. It has to be 'I read out the newspaper to the girl'.
This is a guess, but maybe you could also say something like "Jij leest de krant aan een meisje voor." (corrections are welcome) in Dutch. In duolingo's sentence the "you" isn't reading out the newspaper, they are reading (out) from the newspaper.
I was actually thinking the same. Would be nice to have the opinion of a native speaker about this
"Jij leest de krant aan een meisje voor". Is perfect dutch. (native speaker here)
I actually think your translation is more natural than that suggested by DL. Did you report it?
I think I actually forgot to report it. I wasn't really sure if I was just talking nonsense as well.
I thought about that translation as well, but at the end I didn't find it accurate. "Reading the newspaper" kinda implies that one reads the whole newspaper to that poor little girl. I mean, who could stand that torture? :D It's more like one just reads parts of it to her ("uit de krant"). Maybe an article or two, but most probably not all of them :D
Haha, wouldn't that be terrible! But then again, we don't have context on Duolingo. So I think it's possible to illicit this translation from the sentence, even though it's pretty harsh on the girl ;)
Yeah :D Well, but still without context the "uit" is the problem here. If one would read the whole newspaper I think it would rather be (I hope I get the sentence structure right): "Jij leest een meisje de krant voor." And as I've seen in other comments, everyone seems to be quite keen on the changes that one word might do to the sentence :P But maybe a native could help us ;D
Duolingo's Grammar section on Prepositions: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/3782321 (You could hover on the link and press the right mouse button to bring up a menu with the choice to open it in a separate tab or window if you don't want it to switch to that page from this one which happens with links from the same website.) Here is more information on word order: http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=WordOrder.02 and the Dutch Grammar Overview page: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/3732817
There are a lot of things we do for people, but we read to people from books or newspapers. It is just the preposition used with this verb in this case in English. "to" is used when the person is receiving something, in this case, information. I totally understand the confusion, because we do "sing for" people as well as "sing to" people. When you read for someone, it implies that it was that person's turn to read but they couldn't and you did it for them, but it would have been to someone else. (For example, the person had a sore throat and couldn't read his school report in front of the class, so the teacher read it for him.)
"Jij leest een meisje voor uit de krant" is the same as "Jij leest de krant aan een meisje voor"
Are they both grammatically correct?If yes, do the structure emphasise on anything?
My impression is that there is a difference between reading (out) from the newspaper ("uit de krant") and the (entire) newspaper ("de krant"). (I could be wrong though; I'm not a native speaker.)
Literally translated: "You read (to) a girl out (of) the newspaper." So it means that the "jij" is reading from the newspaper.
Doesn't this mean, "you're reading the newspaper to the girl" - I'm not seeing how this translation makes any sense? Explain like I'm completely new to this, because I am...
What about the sentences that use 'voor' AND 'aan'? What verbs are those? It's a little confusing.
Yes, it is confusing. When I arrived in Belgium and took the train to Liège, it'd stop on the way and announce: we kommen aan in Leuven. I remember thinking: what is this language that puts two prepositions in a row??? I think that is actually why I decided to learn it. It just bugged me too much!
Having two prepositions in a row isn't all that uncommon in English when using phrasal verbs, as one of them is part of the verb (much like the verb aankomen in your sentence). For example, "Look it up in a book."
You are right, of course. My finding it strange had more to do with not being able to see the rule behind it, what connected to what. I don't get that same feeling in English because I understand it. But it is this feeling in general that makes me start learning something. :D
Wouldn't it be acceptable if we said ( you read a girl from the newspaper ) ?
That's not really a valid English sentence.
"You read to a girl from the newspaper" would be valid.
The sentence element een meisje (a girl) is placed after the conjugated verb -- which can indicate that it is playing a role as an indirect object (without the preposition aan):
Jij leest voor aan een meisje. -- You read aloud to a girl.
Jij leest een meisje voor. -- You read aloud to a girl.
In the second example above, the aan is not needed because of the placement of een meisje, which indicates that een meisje is playing a role as a reduced indirect object. ^_^
I've read all comments and couldn't find an answer, although it was asked before, and so I'm asking again: why is there no "aan" in this sentence? We've seen other examples with voorlezen that had "aan" before the person being read to, and here there's no preposition at all. Is this "aan" optional? Is it sometimes necessary?
If you really want you can write "je leest aan een meisje voor uit de krant". It would not be wrong but a bit double. Because the person you are reading to is enclosed by the verb "voorlezen" (LEEST een meisje VOOR) it is obvious that you are reading to her. When the person is not enclosed by the verb, "aan" is necessary. "Je leest de krant voor AAN een meisje".
Het meisje and het boek, otherwise yes you could say it (at least as long as she is reading from a book.
what does voor and uit together in this sentence mean? Can you leave out one or the other?
"voor" belongs to "lezen"., together this is the verb "voorlezen" which translates to something like "reading to somebody", or "reading for somebody". this must be "Reading out loud". "uit" = "from". that belongs to the part: "uit de krant" which translates to: "from the newspaper" leaving out the word "uit" probably has the same effect as leaving out the word "from" from the sentence: "from the newspaper".
Dank je wel. When you hovered over "voor" it didn't link it to leest, so that's why I had no clue about it. It reminds me of vorlesen from German.
Dutch is from the same language group as German. "Voorlezen" and "Vorlesen" have the same meaing.
Yeah, I know, I guess, that's why I'm able to go through a lot of the course quickly.
Can this be translated as "you're reading the newspaper out to a girl"? I used this but it was rejected.
See e.g. the reply by FreekVerkerk above: "uit de krant" means "from the newspaper", the sentence doesn't claim that the (entire) newspaper is read out to a girl.
Thank you. I suppose then that the "uit" refers to where it's coming from - in this case from out of the newspaper. I think I was supposing that it was connected to the verb, and therefore meant read out/aloud. (On the other hand, for me, my original sentence wouldn't have implied the whole newspaper; it would only do that if I used the simple past.)
The verb here is "voorlezen", which already means "(to) read out / aloud (to so.)". "Lezen" in combination with "uit" does indeed look similar to "(to) read out". However, I think we can consider these false friends. Regarding the rest: But you could still say "from the newspaper" to be clear, couldn't you? I'm not sure whether "de krant" would necessarily be taken to refer to the whole newspaper in Dutch anyway, but "uit de krant" seems to imply that just a part of it is read out.
Reading "out" of a newspaper? What does that mean? Shouldn't there be something else to specify what you are reading "out"? Or is the english awkward because it is a literal translation out of dutch?
The english translation confuses me so. Is the girl from the newspaper agents and you happen the newspaper to her?
1- Jij leest een miesje voor uit de krant. 2- Jij leest een krant voor een meisje .. Is this correct? Why we couldn't just use the 2nd sentence? ?
Could it also be: jij leest uit de krant aan een meisje voor ?? Or: uit de krant leest jij aan een meisje voor?
It seems a little ambiguous to me. Can this sentence be translated as "I read a girl from newspaper" i.e. i read a news story about a girl in the newspaper. "een meisje" in the suggested translation acts as a indirect object, how about acting as direct object?