1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "La noche estará pagada."

"La noche estará pagada."

Translation:The night will be paid for.

December 23, 2012



"the night will be paid" makes no sense in English. You can't pay a night. I'd report this as a problem, but that isn't an available option.


In Spanish it may refer to a certain service that takes place at night will be paid for. For example, the night at a hotel.


"For" is what makes the difference.

To pay is transitive. It requires an object that receives the action.
I paid the plumber. = He receives the money.

To pay FOR is intransitive.
I paid for the repairs. = The repairs do not receive the money.


"The night will be paid" is nonsense in English. It needs to be "paid for". A more detailed example from above would be "I paid the plumber $80 for the work." "Plumber" is actually the indirect object. The direct object is "$80".


It’s Spanish, not English. Get up a petition and try to get the Royal Academy to change Spanish to what you’d rather it be.


Have a little tolerance, Mike209223, for all those native English speakers who were taught never to end a sentence with an adverbial particle (e.g., "for"). See my comment below for reasons why the adjectival "pagada" should be translated as "paid for."


Neither does the check nor the bill but in English we pay them all the time.


"Paid for" is accepted as of August 2016.

The best was to express that in english is to say it's complimentary - meaning that you don't pay for it. "Receive one complimentary night on bookings of 3 or 4 nights..."

"The night will be complimentary" should be accepted.


I don't feel that "the night will be complementary" is the same thing as "the night will be paid for" at all, nor have I seen any sign that the spanish word would translate to complementary. I don't agree that that's a valid translation. Paid for means somebody paid for it, complementary means you're getting it as a promotion or gift of some kind - payment was not required.


Perhaps it means complimentary at least some of the time? Here is an example: "Noche pagada en un hotel fantástico!"


complimentary - given or supplied free of charge

complementary - combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasize the qualities of each other or another.


Complimentary: freely given as a compliment, ie token of appreciation.

Complementary: making complete.


Elizabeth's comment is correct, but not all definitions of "complimentary" were listed.


And maybe for spending that night with someone. Actually that was my first thought...


That would make sense in a context in both languages but there is no context here.


"La noche estará pagada." <- But does this sentence at least make sense in spanish? Or does it sound equally stupid as "the night will be paid" in english?


I am a native Spanish speaker and this sentence does not make any sense...


Thank you for that comment. I have no complaint with translating nonsensical statements because that helps me understand Spanish grammar and how to construct phrases. However, it is helpful to know whether the sentence is an idiom, sort kind of slang, or just strange.


'Pagar' means both 'pay' and 'pay for', similar to the way 'escuchar' means 'listen' and 'listen to', and 'call' means 'llamar' and 'llamar a'.


Is the the intended translation for this? It should be updated.


It says in the translation for "pagada" that it's used for both "paid" and "paid for."


"The night will be paid", can be said in the same way you might say " the work will be paid,"


In English it would be "The work will be paid for".

You pay a person (for a future obligation), a fee, a fine, your respects....

Examples, guys:

"I paid him $25 to trim my hedges"

"I paid her $10 to do my homework"

"I have to pay a monthly fee to make unlimited international calls"

"I went to court to pay a fine (for speeding/for driving without my headlights on/for littering)"

"I went to the cemetery to pay my respects."

"pay for" implies that your are "covering" the expenses of something or someone or compensating someone.

"I'll pay FOR your dinner" "No, thanks. I'll pay for my own dinner" (that's kind of a rude response, by the way).

You cannot "Pay the dinner" because "dinner" is not a living thing capable of using money.

"I'll pay FOR the bicycle"

You cannot "Pay the bicycle" because the bicycle is not a living thing.

Consider this example:

I paid the waiter FOR Jennifer's meal. (I gave money to the waiter to cover the amount owed by Jennifer for her meal).

I paid for Jennifer's meal. (You gave the money to someone [the waiter, the cashier, the manager, etc.] It doesn't matter. The point is that you paid the amount owed by Jennifer to the establishment).

Think about the difference between "I'll pay her" and "I'll pay for her".

Sometimes, "pay for" is equivalent to the "encargarse de" construction in Spanish.

You cannot "pay the night" because the night is not a living thing to which you could owe money.


But you can say "The night is paid" or "The work is paid" - it's fine as colloquial english. For example, I might reply to someone who says to me - "And you do that for free? ", "No, the work/ night is paid"


klorathy, I've never heard or said "The night is paid" even in colloquial English. In reply to "And you do that for free? ", the usual answer is "No, I'm paid," or "No, the work is paid for.


It a phrase used when say, you've been invited to play somewhere - as your face falls at another "freebie" request, your inviter says "The night is paid" It's perfectly acceptable British english.


I'm a native English speaker and it sounds alright to me :/


I agree with klorathy and catfanciest on this. The difference in argument seems to be a matter of perspective, i.e., which end of the transaction the speaker finds themself on. Consider this example: Suppose a company hires a third party to provide a training for its employees. When the employees are notified of the training, they might ask, "Is the training paid?", meaning "Will we be paid to attend?". The one responsible for hiring the third party might ask themself, "Is the training paid for?", to make sure they have paid their client. The client might also ask before providing the training, "Is the training paid for?", to be assured that they do not end up with an IOU from the company that hired them.

Other examples on the same vein: "Is it a paid gig?" (a musician who has just been asked to play at a party)

"Is it a paid event?" (a performer who has been asked to provide a service at a community gathering).



Guys, remember that there are people trying to learn English and not far-out forced constructions that only exist for the purposes of proving a weak point. "The night will be paid" is an awkward, unnatural sentence in English. Yes, you would be understood if you say "The night will be paid" to your hypothetical band if they are wondering if they will be paid for a gig/venue, but that doesn't mean it would be a natural response. It would be more natural/common to say "is it a paid gig?" or "Will we get/be paid?". I hope a non-native English-language learner could infer just by the lack of agreement and length of this thread that the phrase "the night will be paid" is better off avoided. Let's be real.


I agree. It's not the first thing you think of when you read the phrase without context, but I'm sure the 'for' is dropped out of the sentence in spoken English far more often than the people arguing 'against' realize. The example about training is a prime example. If you're doing a job search on Craigslist or wherever, you will see "paid training" very frequently. It doesn't make it proper formal grammar (since effectively you're just leaving out the word for, it is implied or assumed) but it sees frequent use. If pagar means to pay or to pay for, either one, then I think either translation should be acceptable.


Sure, now get those qualifications into the translation


No, that would be unnatural in American English. Perhaps your example would be the case in British English.


I think it's fine as colloquial American English.


Because I work at a pizza joint, sometimes the night will be paid or sometimes not.


It makes sense to anybody who's ever worked in the service industry. Get outside your bubble!


I think you are incorrect. Saying the night will be paid is the same as the bill will be paid. It doesn't mean you are paying the night but it means you are paying for the night just as you could say the bill will be paid. You are actually paying the restaurant and the bill is a representation of the restaurant. Paying the night is a representation of all of the things that are going on that night. It's not something I would say but if someone else said it I would understand it because the president already exists for other things to be paid.

  • 2038

Estoy de acuerdo; it should be "The night will be paid for"


I thought it might imply that the night has been taken care of, as in paid for by someone else. For instance someone has treated you to dinner, you go to pay and are told that it has already been taken care of (paid for) by someone else. Is this a possibility?


In that case you would say, "Dinner is taken care of." or "Dinner was on the house" (if the restaurant owners/employees took care of the bill). There are other options depending on the context (like the phrase "foot the bill"), but none of those options would include "The night will be paid". Saying a sentence like that will make it clear that English isn't your first language.


"On the house" is a euphemism for "complementary."


I put "the night would be paid for" and it was accepted. that at least makes some sense in English.


Yes, I'm a Spanish speaker and this is the only sense I find for the sentence: someone is saying that the payment for the (hotel) night is been taken care of.


I said "paid for" and it accepted my response as correct. It is currently May 2016.


this sentence needs to be in the flirting section hahaha


Mañana tenemos abandonar el palacio, pero esta noche estará pagada?


"Estará pagada" can be translated as either "will be paid" or "will be paid for." In English grammar, there is a little-known name for prepositions that act in this adverbial way, and that name is "particle." In this English translation, the lack of the particle "for" as part of the translation of "estará pagada" means that the word "night" is being used to mean someone or something that is to be paid, like a person or a business is paid, rather than the way "noche" is used in the Spanish sentence, which is to mean a service or expense that will be incurred during that night and paid for by an unknown person.

Because this sentence is talking about the "expenses" of the night, the English word "for" is not actually being used as a preposition. This is important because many English writers insist that sentences should not end in prepositions. Just as Spanish conjugations change the verb ending in order to indicate first, second, or third person, this is a sort of English version of "conjugation," except that it does not indicate person, but rather, adds the "for" after the verb "pay" when the verb is passive (has some form of "is" as the helping verb). Then, the listener/writer knows that the subject of the sentence "The night will be paid for" is the object of the the preposition "for" when the identity of the payer is known. For example: MY FATHER will pay for the night.

What this means is that the "other correct solution" that you list is actually incorrect because it leaves off the word "for." The ONLY way to convey the meaning that an unknown person is paying for the "night" is to use the word "for" as an adverb, even though many people do not like to end English sentences with the word "for." The issue here is that it is colloquial in Spanish to use "pagada/pagado" to mean "paid for," and formal English writing style dictates that sentences should not end in words that are prepositions. I tend to agree, except when, literally, the meaning gets lost in the translation.


Interesting. I don't think any of us can say exactly what caused the error in translation (It could be that the translator directly translated only one meaning of "pagar" (just "paid" instead of "paid for"; it could be that the translator simply made an error and there is a lag in how long error take to be corrected on this website). I, personally, don't think the issue was that the translator was trying to avoid a "dangling preposition" (as they are called). Avoiding dangling prepositions is not a rule (although it is often perpetuated as such) of formal English writing but rather a stylistic choice. One major takeaway for a non-native speaker is that THE ADDITION OF A PREPOSITION TO A VERB CAN CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE VERB REGARDLESS OF ITS LOCATION IN A SENTENCE. For example, "see" is distinct from "see through". That is, you can see a window that is covered in soot but you can't see through it. This shouldn't be too troubling of a concept for Spanish speakers considering many Spanish verbs have meanings that are altered by the addition of a preposition as well. You might note, on the contrary, that it is Spanish (and other Latin-based languages) that do(es) not fully support dangling prepositions (In fact, I can't think of a Spanish sentence off the top of my head where a dangling preposition would be acceptable). So I would venture to say that the translator was more than likely relying on a syntax he was used to (one where dangling prepositions don't exist) as opposed to conforming to a stylistic guideline (where dangling prepositions should be avoided). But, as I said before, I can only guess.


**Note to English learners: Ignore the contents of this comment EXCEPT for the sentence starting with "One major takeaway"


You just reinforced my point: Instead of thinking of the word "for" as a dangling preposition, think of the prepositional phrase "for the night" as the object of the sentence if the presently unknown payee was identified. "My father will pay for the night" is an active voice sentence, but becomes passive when the object (which is a prepositional phrase) is turned into the subject: The night will be paid for. In this passive voice sentence, the word "for" functions as a particle.


maybe if you consider "the night"


to already include the hotel or whatever you would have to pay for. (sorry for double-commenting)


It makes sense in the hospitality business.


Can someone tell me what tense "pagada" is. I must be missing something, I cannot find it in the seven simple tenses.


It's the participle, which is "pagado". Here, it is acting like an adjective, so it modifies "noche" which makes it feminine to become "pagada".


Gracias por eso. I had a gut feeling that "pagar" is being used here as an adjective, but I do not fully comprehend all this grammar stuff yet. Perhaps if I keep reading helpful comments like yours I will improve !!


"Paid" isn't a participial adjective here; this sentence is the passive voice, which also uses past participals .

I am taking a paid leave. = participial adjective, describing the type of leave My school pays me. = active voice, the school is the agent, I am the recipient of the action.. I am paid by my school. = passive voice, the agent is de-emphasized and removed to a 'by phrase". The recipient of the action is moved to the beginning of the sentence.


Thanks for your explanation, it's kind of you to go to the trouble. I'm sorry to have to say that, while your words are somewhat helpful, I still have not got my head around the passive voice. Perhaps it a step too far for me at this stage of my studies.


I'm afraid if you attempt to break the sentence down at the level that a linguist would, you will miss the forest for the trees. For the sake of learning Spanish with reduced frustration, just treat "paid" as an adjective describing the night much like you would if you were talking about the check at the end of a meal (i.e., La cuenta (ya) está pagada). Incidentally, participles are known as verbal adjectives anyway (and for good reason). The only time you have to worry about not matching a participle with the subject is when you are using have+participle constructions (the kind you will find when searching for verb tenses). La cuenta (ya) se ha pagado (not "pagada"). If you are worried about not properly assigning the proper gender to a noun or adjective, don't. You're going to do it anyway and it won't prevent you from being understood. Focus more on pronunciation and correct conjugation and you will be light years ahead of other beginner Spanish speakers. Trust me. Caveat: When doing schoolwork, naturally you should focus on all elements of a sentence because then it is not about being understood; it is about being correct.


Having read the comments below, I agree this really should be "The night will be paid FOR".


I can only guess that this sentence is poetic in nature. In that sense, this sentence could be useful to know.


Whether it's right or wrong it is clearly very misleading. Why use a phrase like this?


"The night will be paid FOR" is what is required in English.


must be "the night will be paid FOR"


so estara is will be or what? I don't get it. Please explain someone?


Yes, estará is future tense of estar. As you guessed, here it means will be.


If you are working in some kind of voluntary fashion, a very important project comes up, and the work is to be done at night, a donor might come forth and say, "the night will be paid."

It's all I can think of.


See EconomicActivist's comment above.


I think this makes sense colloquially and with context where the actual subject was previously mentioned. For example (at a workplace with day/evening/night shifts): Person1: "The billing system is finally working." P2: "They still need to send me last week's pay check." P1: "All of the day shift should receive theirs now." P3: "What about the night shift?" P1: "Don't worry, the night will be paid."


I thought maybe it was "The night will be rewarding" but nope.


The night will be paid "for"... Kind of funky, but I wonder if this is how it is said in castellano?


This is not a meaningful sentence in English. You might be able to come up with some bizarre circumstance where it might be said, but really that is true of many strings of words with no real meaning and hardly a way to learn a language.


Not the best sentence to try to figure out


Yup, this is an odd construction.

"The night will be paid." About the only way it makes sense is if you happen to have just spent the night at an hotel and, at the counter the following morning, realize you've lost your credit card and are trying to reassure the clerk she isn't about to be stiffed. Bit out there.

"The night will be paid for." It could make sense - if you are anticipating a morning spent leaning over the toilet bowl after a long night with mucho cervezas?

Not pretty, but possible.


See EconomicActivist's comment above.


You pay the night, huh ?


why can't we use "the night is going to be paid"?


The sentence "The night will be paid" makes it seem like the "night" is a person or business that will be receiving the money. See my comment above.


shouldn't there be a "le" in there somewhere - seems like it's reflexive


'The night will be paid FOR' was accepted on 26th October 2018.


In english this sounds almost like an ominous warning. Like, some things belong to the night, don't think that the night won't take what it is owed.


The correct expresion is: esta noche pago Esta noche pagaré


Can it be translated to "it will be paid at night"? If not, why not? "El lunes" can mean on monday, can it not?


"La noche estara pagada" is talking about the night as a subject here. You would need to say "se pagara por la noche" if you wanted to say "it will be paid at night."


Será can be used or not?


"Ser" should not be used because not every night will be paid for.


Come on Duo, this just isn't English - you could pay a "Knight" but not a night.


January 2018 and still the worst English sentence I've seen on Duo.


Who do I give the money to? The moon?


Makes no sense in English.


I understand that DL is trying to get us to think Spanish but it would really really help if they used complete sentences that made sense - which would then stick in my memory!


This statement makes no sense.
Who collects the money for the night? Duolingo needs to learn English.


This makes no sense


Hahahaha completely nonsense translation


it is a stupid comment in English!


only a knight can be paid not a night!!!!!!!


Not correct english


Still doesn't make sense in English, without being more specific

Learn Spanish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.
Get started