1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Sie hat ein Auto bestellt."

"Sie hat ein Auto bestellt."

Translation:She has ordered a car.

November 22, 2014



I answered "she has a car ordered" and was marked wrong. The definition provided was "She has ordered a car". What's wrong with my answer? Grrrr...


I am English and would say "She has a car ordered" if I was talking about a female who has a taxi booked or a new company car ordered.


That's what I say also. I am also English. Is this program right ALL the time?


English or native English speaker? Very different things.

Either way, this was under the Present Perfect section for me. The sentence you propose has a completely different meaning.

In the one they provide, SHE does the ordering. The second implies she has it ordered for her.

I think changing "ordered" to "washed" might make it clearer.

"She has her car washed." vs "She has washed her car."

In the first one, she probably took it to a car wash. In the second, she did the washing.


Notice that the main thing that will separate "has + verb" is a negation.

You're trying to take the German sentence too literally. The verbs after the first go at the end.

That being said, of course DuoLingo isn't infallible. However, I think the sentence structure here is spot on.


But even if she ordered the car or one was irdered for her, do you not think she would have notified someone she was needing a car? Sane as in washing the car. Whether I had washed my car manually, rook it to be washed by someone else, ie ran it through the automatic car wash, I would say that I had washed the car.


My point wasn't necessarily what people would say (English is spoken in a ton of places and adopted differently in each), but that separating the verbs as they did in the comment I replied to leads to possible different meanings.

Whether I had washed my car manually, rook it to be washed by someone else, ie ran it through the automatic car wash, I would say that I had washed the car.

And if she had said "I had ordered the [noun].", I would have had no issue with it. Instead, she said "I had the [noun] ordered." which is not the format you used.

What about a different sentence that takes out the logic and just focuses on syntax?

"I had taken the book with me when I left."

Should a sentence like the one below be acceptable?

"I had the book with me when I left taken."

Nope, and that is the crux of my argument. I probably spent too much time talking about the logic instead of the syntax in my last comment. I only tried to offer up another sentence in the hopes that it would make the verb separation harsher to the brain so one could focus more on it, but it appears I failed in that aspect.

PS - Personally, I would have a different answer depending on who did the action every time.

If I were actually performing the action:

"I [verb] the [noun]." or "I had [verb] the [noun]."

If somebody else performed it on my behalf:

"I had the [noun] [verb]."

But maybe that's just me not wanting to take credit for an action I didn't perform and not actually anything to do with grammar rules.


Apparently not :D


Here, "has" is not the primary verb. Instead, it is "ordered", or really, "has ordered" as one piece since this is present pefect.

So "She" comes first followed by the verb "has ordered"/"ordered". Now add a direct object to be acted upon. "She ordered it" is about a simple as you can get with the sentence. Here, "it" stands as a replacement for "a car".

Now, if you changed the order to "She it ordered"/"She it has ordered", it wouldn't be correct.

The only way the order you used would work is if you had used "had" instead of "has". It would change the meaning of the sentence, but would be valid. At this point, "had" would be the primary verb. "She had a car ordered" would be fine. As I said, however, it changes the meaning. Instead of actually ordering the car, she had somebody else order the car for her. The direct object is now "a car ordered".

In short, because this is present perfect, you can't separate "has/have/had" with its other verb. (mostly true!) Some things like negations can separate it. For example: "She has never ordered a car." Still, "has never ordered" can be considered one part.


why isn't it "eines Auto"? Isn't auto neuter?


It is indeed neuter. However, the indefinite article only changes to eines in the genitive case. For accusative it should stay ein.

With an adjective you'd be a bit more correct. If the sentence were "She has ordered a new car.", then you would get "Sie hat ein neues Auto bestellt."



Does this work if you ordered a taxi or an Uber for example?


"she has ordered an auto" is marked wrong? why?!


Auto is German for car. Perhaps you can use automobile as that shows you have translated from German to English but I don't think we would generally use the word 'auto' in English.


i use auto all the time and i am a native st louis speaker they are wrong for not allowing it


Wait a minute : if "bestellen" meant order or reserved... how can you distinguish between the two in the sentence.

Unless for the German mind, reserving implies ordering already...


Wait a minute : if "bestellen" meant order or reserved... how can you distinguish between the two in the sentence.


If you look at the examples they give for in the dictionary for bestellen, you'll see that when you use it as "to order", it's similar to "in Auftrag geben", or "to commission". For example, ordering food at a restaurant. When it's meant to be "to reserve", it's more akin to reserving a book, or in this case, a car.

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