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.
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....
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
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."
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.