"Hij was voor haar gevallen, maar zij niet voor hem."
Translation:He had fallen for her, but she not for him.
Hi Rumnraisin. Okay, in that case I agree with you (I have to, you are a native!). The only thing I like to add, is that the Dutch sentence do has a natural emphasis on "him" which would appear in the English sentence too, but that can be done simply accentuating 'him'. Sorry for the unproductive hairsplitting and thank you for your help! :-)
Lu, you are not obligated to agree with anyone. In fact, interesting linguistic debates like this are actually how we learn, and as native speakers, we don't have to study English grammar like you do so sometimes we do things wrong that yyou wouldn't, so if you honestly disagree with us natives, go right ahead and tell us why
Hi Oscar. I was lucky then, not being native English, me too I disliked this construction "but she not for him". So , I wrote "but she didn't fall for him" (extending the phrase for making it sound nicer) and, yes, Duo accepted it! And truly, it means exactly the same, sounds just a bit more stylish. Bravo Duo! Cheers, Lu
In Dutch, you would not say "maar niet zij voor hem" (=but not she for him), at least speaking a regular Dutch. But if an English native says that it doesn't sound weird in English and that it is even better, I have the "duty" to listen to the English student. That doesn't offend me, on the contrary I suppose. Thank you Gymnastical for being so kind and positive towards me but we must aware of becoming to sure of ourselves, yes, that is what I call a constructive open minded Duo-mentality! Cheers Gymna!
What rumnraisin said actually DOES sound weird to me, but I think he's British, and I'm American, and there are differences in the English spoken in both countries, and even different regions within said countries. So you've got many spheres of influence to understand this from. And did ya mean to post the same reply three times
Very fair points. :-)
Although I think it is standard British English, it could even be more localised than that - to my UK region's dialect or ideolect [who really knows, without a national survey].
I could also be missing a nuance in the Dutch (or the English, for that matter).
While giving daadaadaaren a positive answer, I really didn't mean to state more than that the sentence daadaadaaren gave sounded more natural to me, which still leaves scope for my opinion to be idiosyncratic despite it being that of a native speaker. (It is in fact what I gave as an answer here.)
I think you have talked a lot of sense on this thread. :-) Thanks.
(US Native - Colorado) I have to say it sounds a bit odd to me. It's not wrong at all, but it's too formal for my region. It would be fine in an school essay but I might get some chuckles from friends and some strife about being too proper if I were to use this structure. Similar to how "May I have a piece of chewing gum" is correct but "can I have (or 'get') a piece of gum" is more common, although technically not correct.
To clarify, I don't disagree with anything previously said. I just wanted to show another angle based on my experience.