Translation:He has slept and you have played.
I'm not sure why the last part of the sentence didn't use 'gespielen' as in "...und du hast gespielen." Can someone explain the construction that was used here? Thanks!
The participial form of 'spielen' is 'gespielt'. Regular verbs form their participles with ge + verb stem + t. The verbs that have participles of the form ge + verb stem + en (which looks like ge + infinitive) must be memorized.
Because those two sentences don't mean the same thing. "He has slept... " means that before this point in time, those actions occured. "He was sleeping..." implies actions happening simultaneously. Either the sleeping and playing happened at the same time, or both of those things happened while a third, unmentioned thing was going on:
1: I said it was dinnertime, and now you're late. 2: Well, we didn't hear you 3: That's because he was sleeping and you were playing.
Terrible example. but I hope it gets the idea across.
There wouldn't be a comma there anyway. That's not a compound sentence. I think...
I found that Duo is looking for have, had, etc. in particular for these lessons, so is strict about it. Under most english usages of sentences like these, have, had ... are not required. Just like how I could have started this post with "I have found that ..." but I didn't.
The German sentence can be translated with or without "has/have." (If Duo doesn't accept the version without it, report it.) However, they have different meanings (or at least different feelings) in English. "Have" usually conveys doing something repeatedly or continuously in the past, or doing something within a period of time, whereas without "have" it's generally just a single action.
So I might say "I slept [last night]," for a specific time but "I have slept [recently / in the past few days]" for a more general time period. German doesn't make a distinction like this in its verb conjugation, so you can use either English sentence for this translation.
As for the sentence in your post, "I have found" (or "I've") sounds much better. With just "found," it sounds like you're talking about one particular occasion where you found this, rather than seeing that in general. It really doesn't sound right to say "I found" there unless you qualify it with a point in time ("Yesterday, I found that ...").
Can you say "er ist geschlafen"? Would it be better or häufig gesagt "er ist eingeschlafen"? Just wondering.
No, you do not say "er ist geschlafen". You do not use "sein" as auxiliary verb, but "haben". The right sentence is "Er hat geschlafen".
Schlafen and einschlafen are two different things. Schlafen means sleep, but einschlafen means fall asleep!
We only use "ist" if the verb is intransitive and refers to moving or changing state/condition (e.g., "gehen," "einschlafen," "fallen"). "Schlafen" isn't moving or changing state, so we use "haben."
'Fall asleep' is 'einschlafen'. Because it's a change of state, the past is formed with 'sein' rather than 'haben'. So the German translation for your sentence would be "Er ist eingeschlafen und du hast gespielt."
I don't think either of those are correct. German translates the English present perfect continuous to just the present.
usually, when your mistyped word is another actual word, it gets marked as wrong, since it changes the sentence to some nonsense. Duolingo thinks you got your vocab messed up, that's why. :)
I put "He had slept and you had played." and was counted wrong. I don't see the difference between that meaning and the suggested sentence: "He has slept and you have played." Any help?
There's a big difference between the present tense has/have and the past tense had. Consider these:
I have slept for five hours today - okay
I had slept for five hours today - wrong
Before noon yesterday I have slept for five hours - wrong
Before noon yesterday I had slept for five hours - okay
Basically has/have must refer to events prior to the present moment, whereas had must refer to events prior to a specified moment in the past.
Thanks for that and the examples. I knew there had to be a difference but it just wouldn't come to me.
I think I understand it better using a concrete example.
"He has an apple." Currently, presently, right now, there is an apple in his possession.
"He had an apple." At some time in the past there was an apple in his possession but not now.
So, "He has slept for five hours." He was asleep for five hours and is still asleep now.
And "He had slept for five hours." He was asleep, at some point in the past, but is not asleep now.
I didn't think of "has slept" as meaning he was still asleep, but that sleeping could be either on-going or concluded. And if the sleeping was concluded then "He had slept."