"Hij leest alle goedkope boeken."
Translation:He is reading all cheap books.
47 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
"He is reading all cheap books" should it not be all The cheap books?
139
That's what I thought. Actually I read the whole thread to see if anybody mentioned that it'd sound more natural with the article . "All cheap books" sounds too colloquial to me, or it sounds as if he is reading all the cheap books of the entire world.
I agree; it needs "the"; but there wasn't one available in the word-bank option. Odd!
- 604
This sentence isn't very idiomatic English. I'd translate it more like "He reads every cheap book", but even that doesn't make much sense.
Would this mean "he reads all of the books that are cheap" or "all of the books he reads are cheap" or is it unclear?
He is harder, but that's more realistic and gives you a second voice to associate with. I think it's generally good.
- 921
I think that a better sounding English translation would be: "He is reading cheap books." or "All the books he reads are cheap". "He is reading all cheap books" doesn't sound to me like an expression that an English speaking person would use.
This is a really awkward sounding phrase in English. "He reads all the cheap books" is a much better fit.... there's plenty if other places on this course where "the" is omitted
Literally means "good-bought" (or perhaps wisely-bought?) haha Dutch is really cool.
A good-buy yes. And actually the word cheap comes from koop/purchase. Old english had ceap, middle English actually still had god chep for goedkoop Over time its meaning (d)evolved from meaning purchase to just inexpensive (via good purchase)
I'm not sure you know the word chapman (I dont know how rare it is, I have only encountered it when doing etymological research myself and never "irl" (well apart from someone I know with that lastname) ) but it is the same as dutch koopman
Would be great if the English answer were »He is reading/reads all THE cheap books.« The present »correct« answer makes my hair stand on end.
He reads all (of) the cheap books.
Would be the best translation. If you want to keep the same meaning. Because the Dutch sentence means if there is a cheap book out there, he will read it.
He is reading all cheap books, at first glance sounds like every inch of the books he reads is cheap. He is using all natural flavourings.
Would not be "he reads" more exact? I am not sure, since I am not a native speaker.
And shout it be " he reads" and not "he is reading"? He could not read all books at the same time.
Why not ... "only cheap books" Isn't the meaning of all, only in this situation? Or can this only mean "he reads every [all] cheap book"
It can only mean every cheap book or all cheap books.
Only cheap books is alleen goedkope boeken in Dutch.
I understand that there is a separate word for only; but in English, "all" can mean "only", as in "the shirt is all cotton". If you say "he reads all cheap books", a native English speaker would (or might reasonably) take it to mean "he reads only cheap books". I was wondering if the Dutch use all this way on occasion.
That seems very colloquial to me (in the words of Seinfeld, Not that there's anything wrong with that). It would be about a level or two above 'He reads books good'. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to mock you or anything. I'm just saying that this is what comes to mind.
Dutch uses the word geheel or helemaal in the case of something being totally one thing and therefor nothing else (only that). (Completely/totally)
And like sudande said. Only cheap books= alleen goedkope boeken.
So no other=alleen/enkel Of nothing else=helemaal/totaal (all of it )
He may be reading cheap books continuously over a period of time, but that does not prevent him to touch other, possibly expensive books. Hence, we cannot use only here.
Because books are plural "boeken" so the proceding adjective needs to have an "e" at the end. "Goedkoop" (without final -e) would only proceed a singular het noun.
Well, cheap does not necessarily equal worthless. In Germany, there is a publisher who revives forsaken classics in paperback to push the price down as deep as possible. And another publisher publishes books in an affordable manner to counter the other publishers who create almost noble editions of classics, thus ramping up the price, consequently turning them unaffordable for some.
Thus, as illiterate as my language may sound, cheap does not always equal a waste of paper. Sometimes, it may only refer to the design, but not the content. As the idiom goes: Don't judge a book by its cover. :D
He didn't say it did, he just said the person did not want to spend a lot of money (vrek or gierigaard in dutch) and nothing about the quality of books.
It isn't about the variation, just all of them. If it is cheap he will read it.
Your sentence could be something like.
Hij leest allerlei goedkope boeken
- 893
What exactly does goedkoop mean. Yes, cheap. What kind of cheap? A good deal? A shoddy product? Is it a positive or negative term?
It basicly has all the meanings cheap can have in english.
The main use however is inexpensive (you will basicly hear it everytime someone buys something) I think english uses the negative meanings more often than dutch does. As an insult to a person rarely and about products only when they break (after only a few uses).
For a person's actions we use laag/low instead of cheap more often I think. And shoddy products we tend to call flut
Well, etymologically, it's a "good buy" (goed = good; koop I take to be related to German kaufen, "to buy").
Maybe a native speaker of Dutch can let us know if it has the "cheap = shoddy" connotations as well.
"Alles" is singular and means "everything."
But here, we need "all (the)" describing plural "books." I believe that every time you say "all the (PLURAL NOUN)", you'll use alle instead of alles .
If I'm wrong, please correct me!!
