How can one know whether to use "Al", "Alle", "Alles", "Allemaal", or "Helemaal"? They all translate to the word "All".
A bit late, but I think this article covers it pretty well: http://www.dutchgrammar.com/en/?n=Pronouns.Id04
Alles (not in the article) is more associated with "everything" or "anything", I believe, and helemaal is a bit more like "at all" (ex. I'm not scared at all - Ik ben helemaal niet bang)
Honestly "is for you" is the same as "yours" in this context and many other.
Not really - in common English usage, it would be just as accurate to say "All the rice is yours"
I don't really get why "all the rice is yours" is wrong. Could someone explain this?
All the rice is yours = Al de rijst is van jou.
This means that the rice belongs to you.
All the rice is for you= Al de rijst is voor jou.
This means that someone bought/cooked (or whatever) the rice in order to give it to you.
At least, that's how I understand it.
Because it's not like a possession. It's more like a gift "from me to you"... "This is for you, and this is for me", you know. - Slightly different.
"This is yours, this is mine". Can't really see the difference myself (and I am a native English speaker). Once someone has something it belongs to them, however they got it.
Are you saying that if someone said "this rice is for you" I wouldn't be allowed to eat it because it didn't belong to me?
YOUR does not always imply ownership. You can point someone in the right direction by saying "this is your road". You wouldn't mean that the road belonged to the person.
I get what you mean but i think maybe the distinction is more black and white in dutch. If you arrived home for dinner and you said 'ooh what can i have'and everyone had taken some.rice and what was left was for you - they might say 'ah well all the rice is for you and that bit of steak' or whatever. And although in English we might say 'all the rice is yours' thats a slightly different possessive meaning in dutch. Personally i would still use '...for you...' rather than 'yours ' because i think it sounds better and because it implies an element of future tense - you havent got your hands on the rice yet! All the subtleties of language of course.....
You'd think that at this point I would have already understood the difference between "jou" and "jouw". Can anyone please explain?
"Jij" = "You". Example: Jij bent ziek = You are ill. "Jouw" = "Your". Example: Jouw fiets = your bike. "Jou" = "You". Example: De fiets is van jou = "The bike is from you" or "the bike is yours". "The bike is yours" could be translated into the dutch: "De fiets is de jouwe", but that is very old fashion and hardly used any more
But doesn't 'jouw' and 'jouwe' depend on what we're talking about - if it is a 'de' or a 'het' thing that one owns? as in: - Jouw tafel (het tafel) - Jouwe lepel (de lepel)
Thanks for asking, but no, sorry. Yes, sometimes things depend on HET en DE. For example: Het meisje, dit meisje. De jongen, deze jongen. But not in this case!!! For example: Het meisje, jouw meisje. De jongen, jouw jongen. Speaking about your examples: It is NOT: HET tafel; it is: "DE tafel, and jouw tafel". IT is: "De lepel, jouw lepel". NIET jouwE lepel. JouwE is used very little, beter forget all about it. It is very old school. See also: https://www.google.nl/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22jouwe%22