"I have to pay for the car today."
Translation:Tengo que pagar el automóvil hoy.
I did a little research on this because I also attempted para in the sentence and lost a heart. From what I can tell, the use of por is to indicate action on something whereas para is used to indicate the result of something. For example, if you say in English, "I was rewarded for saying that", then you would translate using para. I'm not 100% sure on that, but since no one else answered your question, I thought I might attempt to at least stimulate some responses from others as to whether I am correct or totally off base on this.
I also used para... uhhg. However it looks like above does not have either one so i am believing por is optional?
One of many rules of por v. Para is that for most cases, you use 'por' for an exchange or transaction, as in exchanging money for the car.
I also put "hoy" at the beginning of the sentence and lost a heart! So mad because I wrote it the way DL wanted it and changed it!
I actually had no trouble with the sentence at all except for suddenly wondering where to put the "hoy." I put it at the beginning and lost. Can anyone give some guidance on this?
It gives for two possible answers:
Tengo que pagar por el coche hoy. Tengo que pagar el coche hoy.
Why doesn't leaving out 'por' change the meaning?
A native Spanish speaker described the use of "pagar" in the discussion as simply as "pay it" and not "pay for it". They do not need "por" for this to make sense. The crude "I have to pay the car today" communicates the same thing in their mind's eye and many English speakers also perfectly understand what it means without a "for". So to add "por" is a bit redundant but not wrong. The English side of things we like the "for" there so regardless if "por" is used we usually translate "pagar" as "pay for"
"que" followed by the verb "tener" ("tengo" here) seems to mean "have to" = "tengo que"
Just to understand, any time Tengo (or any of it's congegation) is followed by the verb ("I have to X") it needs to be translated Tengo que Do I have that right?
I wasn't so sure, but I believe this is technically correct. I got this wrong for the same reason. I have heard native speakers skip the "que" but maybe they are just saving time using bad grammar.
Yes, "I have to (do something)" (or "I must (do something)") is "tengo que" or "tiene que", or "tenemos que", etc...
Yes technically "tengo pagar por el coche" would sound more like how it sounds in English to say "I have pay for the car"- in the sense that there's a key pronoun missing
why do you need the que? I do not know when to use que or not to use que. pagar (to pay).