1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Wir brauchen Holz für das Fe…

"Wir brauchen Holz für das Feuer."

Translation:We need wood for the fire.

August 23, 2014



Why isn't it dem Feuer? Is it not an indirect object?


Yes it is, but that's not exactly how it works in German, so: No!

That's because "für" is an accusative preposition, so it always triggers the accusative case :)

Just like "um", "ohne" and "gegen" are also accusative prepositions, and there are dative prepositions as well, like "mit", "nach" and "von".

And there are also two-way prepositions, like "in" and "auf" which confuses us even more! :D

There are Duolingo lessons about it, but you can check also other sources for more info (here, for example).

Hope that helps! :)


What if we use "dem fauer" without using "für" in this sentence?= "We brauchen Holz dem Fauer"


Where I live, people would simply say "we need firewood" - but Duo doesn't like that.


Wir brauchen brennholz, is "we need firewood" and what's wrong with the phrase "we need wood for the fire"?! Its about "basic" phrasing here everyone and then after, you can shorten phrases, but right now it's how to create, and following duolingo steps, baby steps! Here you can replace "the fire" for "this fire" by replacing das, but right now, this is the worded phrase, no need to complain, but just follow, basic steps. And not how to complain to duolingo lol. Remember it's not yet "advanced" here.


What is wrong with "We need timber for the fire"? Should it be accepted also?


It would be understood just fine, but TECHNICALLY timber is still standing. Once the tree is cut down they are logs, it can then be cut and split into firewood for burning or milled into lumber i.e. boards and beams for building.


That's specifically American usage. In other Englishes, timber is wood that can be used for building, whether it's still standing or not. Lumber is "disused articles of furniture and the like, which take up room inconveniently, or are removed to be out of the way; useless odds and ends."


Thank you for your words!


I haven't heard of the word timber before but google image gave me similar pictures for both and both are translatable as "Holz". Leo.org gives me the impression that timber is more the stuff you built with though.

But I would say: If you can say that in english then it should be acceptable and you should report the mistake.


Thank you!

I agree that it is not a widely used word (at least not as used as wood), but the core meaning is correct. I am not a native English speaker, hence the question. Further, each and every evidence I searched before asking suggests that it should be accepted. Including this one: http://thesaurus.com/browse/timber

I will try to report it. By the way, it would be very useful to have a "report this" button here, so the issue could be automatically reported together with the discussion around the point. Guess I will suggest that too.

Regards, Paulo

Done! Reported and also suggested a simpler way to report issues, directly from the discussion threads. Now let's see how Duolingo reacts:).


As a native English speaker, I don't think timber should be accepted here. It's certainly a widely used word (except in the US, where they call it lumber), but it specifically means wood that has been, or is intended to be, harvested and sawn for use in construction or furniture making. It's not firewood, although obviously it can sometimes become firewood later on.


Allright, living and learning. I knew "lumber" but didn't realized the actual meaning you mentioned. Now I remember the place where I read that word and it makes sense. You're correct. Thanks for your help!


Learning German at Duolingo is really improving my English!!!


I used "lumber" for this answer, and I was marked wrong. Yet, in the answer before, or maybe two before this one, I got it correct for answering 'lumber." Being a native speaker of English, wood from a tree is MADE INTO lumber, I suppose, but Duo needs to be consistent. I will report this.


But for a fire you just need wood of any description or do you really only make fire with lumber?


Yes, your correct concerning the lumberjack process!, as well, and whats written in the dictionary, but duolingo was searching for "wood" specifically, which is Holtz in german, and in wood for "firewood" I do speak german, and I'm just brushing up more fluently, and a carpenter by trade, I'm referring this to everyone and not just you, or not picking on you.


Wood into lumber, and then into timber for the building process, carpentry, I checked the oxford dictionary and I am a carpenter by trade. Also for everyone, duolingo at this stage is for beginner's the actual phrase " firewood" is in german "brennholz" and pardon me for the previous my comment typo, there's no t which i added typing to quick. And eveyone this is still basic german! not advanced yet here!


That is really a feature that would be neat. I see it very often when people aren't sure about reporting or not and then ask in the discussion just to see that they should have reported that.


Basic survival skills with Duolingo


More wood for the fires that make us... Flashlight revelries caught in the headlights of a truck... Eating seeds is a pass time activity... The toxicity of our city, of our city...

LOL, I immediately thought of this as soon as i saw this sentence today. Now I'm in the mood to listen to SoaD.


Why cannot it not be "we need wood for this fire"?


Because that is not exact. "This fire" would be "Dieses Feuer", and that is not the question. "Dieses" is a more direct demonstrative pronoun, indicating that you mean EXACTLY this fire here, so you would probably be pointing at the fireplace in that moment. With "das" as a simple article, you could even be far form the fire and suddenly remember "Oh, almost forgot, we need wood for the fire (at home)"


can´t you write some wood?


what's wrong about logs doesn''t mean Holz?


It's too specific.


Why not we need firewood


Although it's almost the same, the German expression means "We need wood for the fire.", translated word for word. Needing wood for the fire is only slightly different than needing wood that is specifically predesignated for use in a fire, if that makes sense. It's nitpicky and they may even allow it in the future, but that's the only reason I can come up with.


Firewood = Brennholz


can it be "Wir brauchen dem Feuer das Holz"?


Why not "We require wood for the fire?"


That is a correct translation and is accepted.


"We need wood for the fire. " Why is that wrong ?


It should be "the fire" not just "fire"?


Which the answer is "das feur" for "the fire" wir brauchen holz "das feur" "das" being the operative word here. We need wood for "the fire".


I have a question :Is it possible to say: We need fire wood.? So wie wir im Deutschen sagen:"Wir brauchen Feuerholz."


Brennholz = firewood, and not feuerholz. "Wir brauchen brennholz" is "we need firewood"


Why is "feuer" pronounced "freuer"? Or is it just the reader that says it that way?


This is the second time today this has happened: a completely different sentence. The German sentence was, 'Das ist Leder', and I wrote, 'This is leather'. I got it wrong, and Duo said that the correct answer is , 'We need wood for the fire'.


Absolutely could NOT hear 'das' so thought it must be plural, as it sounded like 'die'. Suggest Duolingo listens to old films, when people COULD enunciate!


I agree! Very poor enunciation for teaching. Story speakers are far better.

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