- Forum >
- Topic: German >
- "Wir brauchen ein Feuer."
62 Comments
It sounds weird to say in English "We need a fire" isn't it? I would suggest that "we need fire" shall be accepted as well.
2265
It's not so unusual. "It's cold out. We need a fire, can somebody gather wood?" (Though "we need to make a fire" might be better for that.)
Yes, if "Feuer" can also stand for "bonfire" than it makes more sense. Anyway, since "fire" is an abstract form of energy, I would use it in English without the article "a". If I mean a specific appearance of some burning wood I'd say "bonfire" instead.
- 2265
But "fire" is used very often to mean "bonfire", "campfire", etc. "I threw the log into the fire." "She built a fire in the firepit." It can mean a controlled area of fire, not just the presence of fire.
Considering how Duolingo used a picture of a building burning the ground to illustrate what "das Feuer" means, I guess you could say that we're dealing with arsonists in this sentence.
(Das) Feuer is any kind of fire, from a campfire to a building on fire to a small flame. It's the idea of fire. (Der) Brand is more akin to a structural fire, like "There was a fire down on Main Street last week."
It depends on the context. If you drop the article from the English sentence, you should drop from the German sentence as well.
People who are ESL should really stop declaring that perfectly normal sayings are "weird" in English.
We require a fire, sire, to make a pyre for the shyer Squire Meyer, since he did expire from a sickness most dire, and when we went to inquire of a slyer wool dyer from the Shire, whom at a prior time we did hire to fire the pyre, the liar earned the ire of the entire choir by saying he had decided to retire and become a buyer of fine attire and copper wire.
Can someone explain why "Wir brauchen einen feuer" is not correct? Shouldn't this phrase be in the accusative rule?
Feuer is neuter (das Feuer).
The accusative of ein Feuer is ein Feuer, because the accusative of neuter things is always the same as the nominative. (In all the languages I know.)
einen would be the masculine accusative form, e.g. der Apfel / ein Apfel / Wir brauchen einen Apfel.
Ohh I just got it by myself, it's because "Feuer" is a neutral word, and the accusative article in a neutral word is "ein" as well. I will leave this, up just in case someone has the same trouble.
EDIT: Thanks mizinamo, you answered at the same time I was writting. Appreciate it!
I wrote we need a fire. I got it wrong and it said the correct answer was we lack a fire. What the heck???!!!!
I also think "we need fire" should be acepted because fire is a non countable noun.
The verb "sollen" means "should".
In its conditional form (sollt-), yes.
In the indicative/present tense, sollen is often better translated as "be supposed to".
Would "we need a light" be acceptable as well? As in, to light a cigarette. That's seems the most common context
No; that would be possible for Wir brauchen Feuer, though.
A light for a cigarette uses Feuer uncountably in German.
Yes, that is the appropriate way to say it in English.
"a fire" is an object like "a car" or "a horse".
One wouldn't say "We need car." or "I own horse".
Those would be "We need a car." or "I own a horse".
Examples:
It is getting cold. We need a fire in the fireplace.
There is a fire in the kitchen.
Will no one answer why "We need one fire" (as opposed to several) is not accepted?
Why would you want to say several? The comment that asks about "one" asks about it in comparison to "a" fire. I don't know why "one" is wrong, maybe it sounds too specific and there's no need to count when you only need one? I mean, you probably wouldn't say "we need one fire" in English, instead of "we need a fire", so why translate it that way?
It's not feuer -- it's Feuer. The capital F is important.
And it's ein because Feuer is neuter and is the direct object of the verb brauchen and is therefore in the accusative case -- and ein is the neuter accusative form of the indefinite article.
What's the difference of 'brauren' and 'brauchen'?
brauchen is a German word, brauren is not.
why not "we want a fire" - it may be decorative and is not required urgently. If I ask for a drink in German should I always demand it - I need a drink, when with friends in a pub I might want a drink, I probably do not need a drink.
why not "we want a fire"
Because brauchen means "need", not "want" (= wollen)
If I ask for a drink in German
then you would probably use ich hätte gern ... "I would like to have ..." -- using this conditional is considered more polite than a straightforward ich will ... "I want ...".
Why cant you say "we are looking for fire?"
Because "need" is not the same as "look for".
"We need a light." !!! Assuming, someone wants to smoke. Word "fire" in English is almost always an uncountable noun, it is incorrect to say "a fire". The world "fire" is only accountable in one instance, when it describes when something is burning, like a factory. Then one can say "put the fire out". I do not think Duolingo wants us to translate "we need a fire", meaning to set up something on fire. The translation in English is grammatically incorrect.
The English translation is entirely correct. See the comments by JeffFolster at the top of this thread or my comment further down.
Why is fire Feuer here yet it was Feür in the answer to the previous question ?
For those people who can't type ä ö ü ß, Duolingo allows users to type ae oe ue ss instead.
Unfortunately, the way this was implemented seems to mean that Duolingo considers those spellings to be equivalent at all times and in both directions.
Feuer is correct.
Feür is nonsense; it's Duolingo thinking that you can take the Feuer and turn it into Feür -- even though the syllables are Feu·er and so the u and the e aren't even in the same syllable.
Please try to ignore words such as Fraün or Feür or teür that Duolingo might produce occasionally.
Just because I left out the U in brauchen?
Sure. wir brachen is "we broke" -- completely the wrong word.
because 'we wanted' is past tense, the sentence in the exercise is present tense
