Welcome to separable verbs! Opvoeden, opruimen, opbellen, uitgaan, meebrengen, schoonmaken...oh, the list goes on and on! But, don't worry, they aren't as scary as they look. The usual formula is, in the present tense, if the verb being conjugated is separable, the first bit comes in the usual verb place (spot #2 for statements, spot #1 (with exceptions) for questions) and the second bit gets plopped onto the end of the sentence. "Ik voed haar op." "Ik voed haar erg lastig op." "Ik voed haar en haar broer en al haar andere familieleden op." "Ik bel haar op" and so on. Good luck!
I'm guessing you are probably American? In British English, "to raise" and "to bring up" are roughly synonymous in the context of rearing a child, but "to raise up" is something different altogether. "To raise someone up" would be either to lift them physically, or to put them in an exalted position - it almost hints at some kind of hero worship, but nothing to do with raising children.
I raise her up makes sense but more in the meaning of picking someone up off the ground - but it really doesn't have the same meaning as "bring up"or "raise" in the sense of nurture. Nueture is one of the meanings brought up by Google translate, by the way. It also doesn't have the same sense as bring up in "He brought my mistake up again - that really irks me.".
As an American, I instinctively put this in the past tense. I don't think I've ever heard "I raise her" in the simple present. Even the present continuous, "I am raising her." sounds strange. In almost all cases, even when referring to a small child, an American would use the present perfect or simple past: "I've raised her." or "I raised her."
This is one of those cases where theoretically correct grammar is not enough to match colloquial usage (in English).
Hi pcentgraf. I must absolutely agree with you. If you have a child beside you and you are adopting that child actually, to a curious friend, you never say "Ik voed hem/haar op". It' s not natural. You say "Ik zorg voor hem/haar" or "I take care for him/her".For the more colloquial language, Duo invites to the comments! Voor wie met mij in het nederlands wil converseren, ben ik altijd beschikbaar. Bijvoorbeeld via Attivities. Best wishes, Lu
For me, it has absolutely nothing to do with education. The verb "opvoeden" or in this case "voed .. op", is meant in the way of raising a child. I guess you could say it has to do with education in the sense that you teach a child to behave a certain way and teach it what not to do etc, but it is not really education related.
If I raise her up stands for " I lift her (up) than I would translate: Ik hef haar op. [opheffen= to lift, to raise, to abort ,to cancel, to remove]. If you adopt "raise (up)" in the meaning of upbringing, sincerely I would not put the prep. "up". So "I raise her" becomes "Ik breng haar groot" in Dutch. And just to add a curiosity: "TO RAISE a dust" is translated Stof (=dust) doen opwaaien and yes, that is a very current Dutch expression because of the figurative use of it. Now I have finished. ;-) Enjoy your day guys!
Yes Sean. "To raise a dust" I believe it is the same of the Dutch expression. "Tempest in the teapot" (Dutch "een storm in een glas water"), "much ado about nothing (which makes me think about Shakespeare..), brouhaha, agitation, excessive excitement about sth., chahut in French. I didn't know that word "kerfuffle". So you are British..? Bye.
"Kerfuffle" is thought to be from Scots curfuffle (to dishevel) or from the Celts (compare Irish cior thual (confusion, disorder) and Welsh cythrwfl (uproar, tumult). Or it could be a combined borrowing.
Kerfuffle is chiefly British, according to a few dictionary entries, I've seen, but it's certainly well known here in the Southeastern U.S., where we also speak of kicking up a ruckus.