1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Danish
  4. >
  5. "Jeg læser det efter hende."

"Jeg læser det efter hende."

Translation:I read it after her.

September 29, 2014



"Efter" seems to have two translations when you hover over it: "after" and "for". I put "for" and it was deemed wrong. How would one then say "I read it for her?", as in, on her behalf?


In this context for wouldn't be efter. I believe (however I may be wrong) "I read it for her" would translate to "Jeg læser det til hende".


Id say it is "Jeg læser det for hende"


Or why isn't "for" deemed to be a correct translation?


Because if you put 'for' instead of 'efter' in the sentence you would get "Jeg læser det for hende" which means that you are reading it aloud for her. By putting 'efter' you get the sentence "Jeg læser det efter hende" which means that after she is done reading it you will then read it.


I put 'I read it after she does', which in my opinion is better English than '.. after her', but was deemed wrong. Perhaps change this?


Wouldnt 'I am reading it after her' be better still?


I suppose that they're both correct. This was just to say that I thought that '.. after she does' shouldn't have been marked as incorrect.


i agree, suggest reporting it


To keep consistent tenses you would need to translate it, ''I read it after she did.'' Or else it would be, ''I will read it after she does'' for grammar purposes.


"I will read it after her" should be correct. It sound stupid to say "I read it after her" and i frankly think it is incorrect


The future tense would be worded differently in Danish, so it should not be correct.


Without further context, it is incorrect. Past tense or will-future are OK in this sentence. Simple present is not. Unless you stipulate that it is eg. a magazine that -every month- you habitually read after she reads it.

As it is, this kind of construction just teaches non-English-natives bad English.


See also the replies to the several other comments on the same idea.


If it were referring to an "n" word, would I change "det" to "den", for example, if this were referring to a newspaper (en avis, avisen)?


The two different suggested solutions imply different things though, one's saying he's read it the other is saying he hasn't. Is this because in danish there's no difference when communicated?


In this case 'read' is present tense so both, "I read (reed) it after her" and "I am reading it after her" imply the speaker is yet to read it.

Assuming I understood your question correctly.


Ahhh. It took me a while for me to figure out what you were saying. What had me confused was that the first translation "I read (reed) it after her" doesn't make grammatical sense so I read it as "I read (read) it after her" which does make grammatical sense. It, however, also changes the meaning of the sentence.


It makes grammatical sense though we would use it with more words. "Every week I read it after her." (reed) implies a regular occurrence. We just don't know the context. We could have been talking about how someone is improving their reading skills with a tutor. The "it" could be a book that they are reading a chapter from every week. Reading aloud is a skill that is useful in school. Early readers can benefit from taking turns reading paragraphs.


There is no "he" in the sentence


This is technically incorrect in English (though it is said). It literally means "I read it after [I read] her," because "her" is an object pronoun, so the sentence has one subject ("I") and two objects ("it" and "her"). It should be "I read it after she does." (Two subjects and one object--the book.)


I find the audio very frustrating: fast and very badly pronounced, especially for learning a language. If I would teach a language like that I would be fired in a minute!

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