"De bjuder inte på mat."
Translation:They do not offer food.
31 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
It goes with the verb when it has a object. To "bjuda på X" is to treat someone to something.
Jag bjuder på nästa öl = Next beer is on me
Kan jag bjuda dig på något att äta? = Could I treat you to something to eat?
However, if standalone, på shouldnt be there.
Vill du ha mat? Jag bjuder! = You want food? I'll treat you to it!
Cool, I'm beginning to realize there's gonna be a lot of these fixed expressions. :)
There will be. There are quite a few verbs where the following preposition is important, and even where it might change meaning depending of whether you stress the verb or the preposition. To komma på is perhaps the worst example of this.
Jag kommer på det = I'm coming up with it, i.e inventing/finding out something.
Jag kommer på det = I come on it, as in the sexual kind of way.
Good explanation, Zmrzlina.
When I was originally taking classes in Swedish I remember being shocked to find that all of the verbs I had diligently learned changed completely once someone stuck a preposition after them.
But then I started noticing how often we do the same thing in English. It's really easy to come up with examples. We "punch in" at work, or "hop to it" when we're in a hurry. We "get over" a disappointment, like experiencing a "stick up"!
English does this constantly. Your example with komma på has to have caused people a lot of trouble. Or just a lot of puns.
Another reason to be terrified of putting your foot in it with the Swedish in-laws! Is the emphasis on the "på" in the second example, then?
Kan jag bjuda [...] - Could I treat [...]. Is using "kunde" wrong in this situation?
3196
Yes, 'kunde' is wrong, since you cant put your offer in the past tense. It is now you ask if you 'kan bjuda på', or say 'får jag bjuda på en drink' (may I offer you a drink)
That's how it's supposed to be. De and dem are both /dom/ in spoken Swedish.
I remember when I started Swedish I genuinely thought it was a bug. Now I got used to it. It was actually the first on the long list of rules in Swedish that you just have to accept, as in any new language :)
if jag bjuder can be used as I'm paying, why can't I use it here to say "they don't pay for food"? Only betalar works here?
Someone else can jump in here if I have it wrong, but I'm mostly sure that bjuder only means pay in the sense that someone is "treating" the group, as in "I will treat you to lunch." For that reason you can't use it in the normal version of pay.
I think this is a tough call. "They are not paying for the food" can certainly mean "They are not treating", but could also mean "De betalar inte." Without more context the English sentence is ambiguous. I can see why the DL moderators wouldn't want to allow it ... although personally I'd like to see it accepted because I always get this sentence wrong. :-)
I would say this is wrong. Offer in Swedish is "erbjuder" - "bjuder" in this context means giving a away.
- 3196
I see this kind of context, it is somebody's birthday, you are invited, You want to know if you are to come hungry or not, the answer is: "De bjuder inte på mat, det blir bara fika" (coffee, probably cake and buns as well)
That's true, both translations would be correct. I wrote this comment before finding the report problem button.
Maybe a combined definition of "bjuder ... på" would be helpful - first time I encountered this, I was totally confused as to what it could possible mean.
I don't understand why Duo translates bjuder as to pay (for food in the particular example) and here the translation they do not pay for the food is incorrect.
It's a tricky sentence because it is very ambiguous from Swedish to English. I agree with you and you should report it.
In Swedish it can basically describe four different situations: 1) They do not provide food (Would more likely be "ERbjuder" though) 2) They provide food but it is not free ("Bjuder de på allt det här?") 3) They provide other stuff but not food ("Bjuder de både på mat och dryck?") 4) They will not pay for [someone else's] food ("Ingår kostnaden för allt i resan?")
When you have to translate this from English tk Swedish "bjuder" is not and acceptable answer, only "erbjuder" is. Is there a reason for that?
The main Swedish sentence is always accepted when translating back into Swedish. If you were shown a correction with erbjuder, you must have input something that the system thought was similar to that. Maybe you forgot the preposition for instance? The system will try to match whatever you input with the closest possible translation. If you don't input anything, it will only give you the 'best' solution, which in this case is De bjuder inte på mat.
Can someone tell me the origin of the words erbjuder and bjuder and I wonder how it is related to German
can someone please tell me why there's a "pa(o)" in that sentences?, try to explain it i little simple please
- 3196
bjuda på (mat) - offer (food). The Swedish verb is a phrasal verb in this case. English has other phrasal verbs also, where you have to learn what preposition to use for different meanings. For example 'put' has an large amount of different prepositions to change its meaning.
- 3196
Yes. We don't have the context to this example "De bjuder inte på mat", it can be an information that there will not be a meal (food), but only 'fika' (coffee etc) at the party.
