"Remboursez-le-lui, c'est important pour elle."

Translation:Pay her back for it; it's important for her.

June 27, 2020

This discussion is locked.


Pay it back to her... should be accepted.


Reimburse it to her..., Pay it back to her... and Refund it to her ... are accepted now. But the default answer still needs to be changed.


"Pay her back for it" sounds like some kind of revenge to these English ears.


Quite so. "Pay her back..." is a way of saying "punish her," That's not at all appropriate here.


It doesn't quite mean punish; it means extracting revenge. You can punish a child for bad behavior but that's not a payback. Saying "I'll pay her back" is a metaphor meaning you'll return to her what she deserves (possibly with "interest") for what she "gave" you.

But just because it can be used metaphorically in that way doesn't mean it can't be used literally. "I know I owe you ten quid but I can't pay you back until Saturday" is a delaying tactic, not a threat.


What about "pay back her for it..,"? Not native here


It's just not said that way. Oh, the rule is that pronouns always go in the middle of these phrasal verbs. Nouns can go after.

You can't say "pay back him/her/it/me", only "pay him/her/it/me back" but you can say both "pay back the nice man" and "pay the nice man back".


Thank you very much, Sean!


«refund it to her, its important to her.»


Absolutely. Duo has got this completely arse about face.

"To pay somebody back for something" is "rembourser quelqu'un de quelque chose" and "she" would be the Direct Object.

"To give somebody a refund on something" is "rembourser quelque chose à quelqu'un" and "she" would be the Indirect Object.

This is clearly the latter and not the former.

All of these double-pronoun rembourser exercises are incorrect.


Thank you. I have been wondering about this.


They've been driving me crazy trying to figure out the pronoun logic. Duo!!!


Forget the argument about "pay her back," it's the second part of the sentence which needs a better translation: "it's important TO her."


Judging from the example sentence from the Reverso Dictionary, "Il m'a remboursé l'argent qu'il me devait. He paid me back the money he owed me," the direct object of rembourser is some form of money, and the person paid is the indirect object. I think one would have to add a prepositional phrase to specify what the money was for, such as, "Il m'a remboursé l'argent pour la voiture." But the English translation for this Duolingo sentence interprets lui as the thing the payment was for, not the money that was owed for it. Shouldn't the interpretation really be "Pay it (the money) back to her" instead of "Pay her back for it (the purchased object)"?


Yes I think you are correct, but I'm just a learner. All of these sentences have questionable translations, and I'd like to hear more thoughts on this.


"Reimburse it to her" is a legitimate and accurate english translation.


'Reimburse her ..' is accepted


"Pay her back, it's important to her" was accepted.


Should be important TO her. Saying "important for her" means it's important to someone else (e.g., the speaker) that she do something.


pay her it back.....


I would agree with Pay it back to her.... this is normal english but just the tip of the iceberg. I find Duo's American English quaint and the use of prepositions ,or lack of very strange sometimes .


If this is how people speak in France, I never want to go there.


Clunky sentence construction


pay him back for it that's important for her

Should be accepted as well. It makes sense and is gramatically correct


Reimburse her for it - accepted.


Pay ber back for it or pay her back... the it is generally not necessary as context will make the object apparent and if its not apparent then it should be more specific than it eg the necklace.


I worked out what you wanted by establishing the best way to leave four words left in the box. I only speak english and I find this sentence lacks elegance.


"… important for her?" What?


Often your American English is quaint


I said "pay her it back, it's important for her" but was marked incorrect. Not sure about elsewhere but where I'm from, "pay her it back" is perfectly acceptable English.


Where are you from?


I agree with the previous comment. "Pay her it back........" is standard English. I taught the subject for years so I can speak with some authority.


You might need to rembourser your students for teaching stilted non-standard English.


Well, not everything that obeys the formal grammar rules can be standard English. But what is "to rembourser"? In banking they use "to reimburse", "reimbursement", "reimbursable".


The alternative would be something like "pay her back it" so you can see why that's not standard and this structure is. What do we need the "it" for though in this case? There would have to be a reason to refer to it, and "it" has to refer to something specific, not general, in English. Normally we don't care what you pay back but its equivalent value.

"She paid me this amount in advance, but there's no more to sell." ~ "Just pay her it back."

That's a rare bird indeed though -- a phrasal verb with {two/double} pronoun objects. Something only a longtime teacher or editor might understand . . .


We have "Remboursez-le-lui", that is the thing is direct object and the person (elle) is indirect. Exactly as in your "pay her it back", but although it perhaps doesn't contradict to formal grammar rules, nobody actually says so and Google Books do not contain a single entry of a kind. People would say "pay it back to her" - very clear and simple.


It doesn't sound right to me, but report it if you believe it should be accepted.

Learn French in just 5 minutes a day. For free.