Duolingo is the most popular way to learn languages in the world. Best of all, it's 100% free!

"Hij was voor haar gevallen, maar zij niet voor hem."

Translation:He had fallen for her, but she not for him.

0
3 years ago

18 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/OscarHermosilla

I am not a native English speaker. It sounds odd for me not putting the verb into the second sentence "but she not for him."

Is that usual? Or it is correct but just sounds odd?

21
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/hanstiono

that was exactly what I also wondered

8
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Moonfriend
Moonfriend
  • 20
  • 20
  • 19
  • 13
  • 11
  • 1221

It's correct. There's no need to repeat a portion of a previous clause as it's implied in the subsequent one. We do it all the time, e.g., "I eat meat, but (I) dislike it".

1
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/mossyrock89

Yep. Native speaker here and that was what instantly came to mind as the most suitable translation. :)

2
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/feyMorgaina
feyMorgaina
  • 22
  • 16
  • 13
  • 13
  • 13
  • 12
  • 12
  • 11
  • 11
  • 11
  • 9
  • 8
  • 8
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6
  • 5
  • 5
  • 5
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1376

It's fine. The verb is implied in the clause, "but she not for him", since the context for the clause is dependent on the context of the first clause, "he had fallen for her".

3
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/daadaadaaren
daadaadaarenPlus
  • 25
  • 25
  • 24
  • 23
  • 23
  • 23
  • 18
  • 16
  • 16
  • 14
  • 684

should 'but not she for him' work too?

9
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rumnraisin
rumnraisin
  • 23
  • 22
  • 22
  • 22
  • 20
  • 19
  • 18
  • 16
  • 16
  • 14
  • 14
  • 13
  • 13
  • 13
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 6
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1363

As a native speaker of (British) English, I regard this (but not she for him) as a more normal word order. In fact the current answer but she not for him sounds unusual, to me at the least.

15
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/2200Lucia60
2200Lucia60
  • 25
  • 24
  • 23
  • 22
  • 22
  • 14
  • 14
  • 1185

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! :-)

2
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Gymnastical
Gymnastical
  • 16
  • 16
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
  • 6
  • 4
  • 3

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

3
2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/2200Lucia60
2200Lucia60
  • 25
  • 24
  • 23
  • 22
  • 22
  • 14
  • 14
  • 1185

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

2
Reply3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Gymnastical
Gymnastical
  • 16
  • 16
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
  • 6
  • 4
  • 3

As an American (more specifically, a New Emglander living in Maryland) I would say "but she hadn't reciprocated". Very free translation but free translations are often the best

7
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/2200Lucia60
2200Lucia60
  • 25
  • 24
  • 23
  • 22
  • 22
  • 14
  • 14
  • 1185

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!

0
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Gymnastical
Gymnastical
  • 16
  • 16
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 6
  • 6
  • 4
  • 3

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

2
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rumnraisin
rumnraisin
  • 23
  • 22
  • 22
  • 22
  • 20
  • 19
  • 18
  • 16
  • 16
  • 14
  • 14
  • 13
  • 13
  • 13
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 6
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1363

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.

1
2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/AndrewSnijders

(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.

0
Reply10 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/adamskj
adamskj
  • 25
  • 20
  • 7
  • 6
  • 6
  • 4
  • 506

It's correct, but it sounds a bit poetic. It would sound more natural to say "but she hadn't for him".

0
Reply6 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/japolinomi

Couldn't the sentence be translated as "He had fallen before her, but she not before him"? Is there any way to differentiate when "voor" means "for" or "before"?

2
Reply2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Dutchesse722
Dutchesse722
  • 25
  • 17
  • 16
  • 12
  • 48

Good question! "Voor" can mean "for" as well as "in front of." In this case, the sentence contains an idiomatic expression, namely voor iemand vallen (to fall for someone) so the "voor" means "for" here.

0
Reply7 months ago