1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Spanish
  4. >
  5. "¿Quién está pagando el hotel…

"¿Quién está pagando el hotel?"

Translation:Who is paying for the hotel?

October 14, 2013



Is it just me, or are most of these gerund constructions unnatural (or at least unusual) in Spanish? For example, in this exercise, wouldn't you normally say, "¿Quién va a pagar el hotel?" The question as asked seems to imply someone is at the concierge desk paying RIGHT NOW.


Indeed, "¿Quién está pagando?" Does sound a bit... Out of context, nevertheless correct. Consider as well there are just too many ways to say the same thing in Spanish, so it all will really depend on the person.

True, there are other, more common ways, still.


Yes, this is a case where you can't literally translate the tense in Spanish into the same tense in English. In English, you can use the gerund to mean different things: Who is paying the hotel? (Who pays for the hotel? Who will pay for the hotel?) Someone is in downstairs paying the hotel for parking right now (or the room or the dinner last night). Who is paying the hotel? (Someone is currently in the process of giving money to the hotel.)

My understanding of the gerund in Spanish is that it is actually the latter, which isn't the first meaning you'd jump to in English without any context.


Right--it's more natural in English to say "FOR the hotel".


A major correction:

In English, the sentence "Who is paying for the hotel" had NO gerund in it. By definition, a gerund is a present participle (gerundio) that is being uses as a NOUN.

When the present participle (paying) is used with "is/are/were (etc.), the "present continuous tense is created.

Thus, in this Duo sentence, "who is paying", the word "paying" is a present participle used to create a present (continuous) progressive tense.

Unfortunately, Spanish translates the word "gerundio" into "gerund." But actually, the correct translation of "gerundio" is "present participle." "Gerund" and "gerundio" are false cognates ( cognados falsos, amigos falsos).


The intended meaning of each one is different in Spanish. They're not interchangeable or equivalent. The question in this exercise sounds like a person (e.g. a casual visitor) who doesn't know whomsoever is paying regularly or has currently paid for the stay.


Minor correction for"....who doesn't know whoever is paying..." "Whom" is for direct or indirect objects in a sentence. "Who" is for the subject.

Thus "who is paying whom".
Or, "you are giving what to whom?" Or, "Who is giving what to whom."

In this clause, ?whomsoever is paying", "whosoever" is the subject, and "whomsoever" is incorrect.


As an aside:
"Who is on first?
"What's on second?
"I Don't Know is on first".
"What's whose name"?

Whom are these famous lines from? (From whom are these lines?)
Or, who spoke these famous lines?


This phrase to me implies that someone has agreed to pay the bill. It is not an unnatural structure. Kind of like the difference in English between saying, "Who's paying for this?" and "Who's going to pay for this?" You can say either one.


Spanish verb tenses allow you to be very precise if you wish but in casual speech are often used loosely. Estar + present participle (gerund) is the present progressive tense and implies an action that is going on right now. As you can see, in English, more words or phrases must be added to give the same exact meaning


The sentence in Spanish is not just unnatural, it's WRONG. As you mentioned, "está pagando" is only correct if the person is there paying at the same moment that the sentence is pronounced.


"It's wrong." - "It's correct in these circumstances." You confuse me. :´)

With a bit of imagination you can come up with a needlessly complicated situation where it could perhaps apply. Like, you fell asleep in your hotel room of four while you discussed the payment of the room. When you wake up, you notice that two have left and the remaining friend informs you that the other two have gone down to pay. So, curious, you ask: "Who of them is paying the hotel?"

Yes, it's still not the most natural concept, but it has an application.


The present continuous is for something that is happening at this moment. I see someone at the front desk of the hotel, and I ask my friends, "Who is that paying for the hotel."

Or I walk up to my friend standing at the front desk and ask "Are you paying for the hotel?


How can "Who has paying for the hotel" be a correct sentence? I think "Who is paying for the hotel" is a lot better.


This has been fixed. The accepted answer listed above is "Who is paying the hotel?" and "Who is paying for the hotel?" is also accepted as correct.


Who is paying the hotel was not accepted 8/20/19


"who is paying for the hotel" is not accepted 13/12/18


"Who has paying..." is not grammatically correct; you're right.


that is not correect


The context could be "Who is paying the hotel to do that?" in the context of bribery.


"Who is paying the hotel?" Is not accepted. But in English, "who is paying for the hotel" and "who is paying the hotel" mean basically the same thing. How can one be marked wrong???? Both should be correct.


whole the exercise looks like present continue tense. I am really confused :S


This gets a lot simpler if you translate "quién" as "which one of us".

And pagar means both "pay" or "pay for", depending on context.

Finally, if you read the English sentence literally, it would mean "Who is paying for ownership of the hotel." So, when you say "paying for", there is an understood "bill" or "expenses/costs" left off the end of the sentence: "Which one of us is paying for the hotel [bill]."

[deactivated user]

    You make a good point. The English is really the confusing part here.

    "Paying for the hotel" literally means either (a) the hotel is making a payment and someone (accountant, or whomever) has to do it. [for = on behalf of] or (b) someone's getting a new hotel, and you want to know who's paying for it.

    The intent is "Who is paying the hotel for use of a hotel room" (or some service).

    I'd call it a semi-idiom. It's almost literal, but the item "hotel" determines the meaning of the rest of the sentence. "Who's paying for Bob?" or "Who's paying for lunch?" and "Who's paying for the hotel?" each require different assumptions.

    I think, in Spanish, "para" vs "por" (or neither) make it clear where it's not explicit in English.


    I'll pay.....half the price, how's that sound? (haha)


    Why is "Who is paying for the hotel?" no longer accepted??


    There is no reason it shouldn't be accepted.


    I flagged it 5/15/2018. Not sure why it's saying that translation is incorrect.


    The problem is the exact translation makes sense. The hotel is a business and there is nothing wrong with saying "Who is paying the hotel?" Now, if it was room and not hotel, there is an argument to be made for an exact translation not working.


    " who is paying the hotel" is correct, and it means " who is paying for the hotel." In fact this phrase "...for the hotel," means as if someone is buying it. Which meaning are you implying by this sentence? Saf


    Saf, "paying the hotel" means "giving money to the staff", and "paying for the hotel" usually means "giving money to the hotel in exchange for the its services" They both have essentially the same meaning.


    How do they get for the hotel ,from el hotel


    Thomas, "pagar algo" can translate as "to pay for something".


    ¿Quién está pagando por el hotel? Should be accepted. Or how else would you say "Who is paying the hotel?" in Spanish?

    Yeah,.... i thought so.


    Question for a native Spanish speaker: When does one need to use "pro" in this context? Sometimes DL requires it. It seems to me that I ........pago la luz, pago el teléfono, put as I recall DL has me "pager pro la pizza." Any ideas?


    Uh, ¿pro? ¿you mean por? ¿pager... or pagar?


    LOL. I never meant to type "Pro" .........so again, if you will: "Yo pago la luz." (the light bill) "Yo pago el telefono." (the monthly phone bill). To my "ear" and not any expertise it seems sometimes I have choices: Pago la pizza OR pago por la pizza. Pago las vacaiones OR pago por las vaccines. Please comment! My Mexican house keeper finds them both acceptable and won't recommend one form over the other.


    Both forms are correct, and as your house keeper seems to, she won't decide one over the other, because they're practically the same :)

    Although, i would recommend the first one (Pago la pizza, pago las vacaciones), it's simpler, shorter, neater

    The second option, to my tasting, is a little bit too... Defensive, as if you were fighting for the custody of something ("YO PAGUÉ POR ESAS VACACIONES!" - I paid for those vacations!) And all in all, "por" might or not be there -- depends on you, how you want to sound, where you are.

    I still recommend the 1st one :).


    So this might be a stupid question, but does this sentence mean the same thing as "Paying for the hotel?"



    Yes, what is convenient is that you will pay the hotel for the hotel.

    If you decide to say who you are paying then you might want to say that you are paying that person for the item. Otherwise if you don't mention whom you are paying, it looks as though you don't need to say "por" because it is built into the verb.

    The listener seems to understand that you are paying (the appropriate person to whom you would normally pay this to, for) the item.

    You may want to indicate "por" whenever it could be ambiguous whether the noun following is the recipient of the money or what is being paid for or just to emphasize that this is what is being paid for.

    You can even have a sentence in which you pay money (direct object) to someone (indirect object) for something or some service (object of preposition "for" in English.

    In English you must use "for", but it is not required in Spanish especially if it is the only object.

    If you don't specify another object or service that you are paying for, then what would you assume that you would be paying the hotel for? I would assume I was paying the hotel bill to the hotel. Which can also be worded as "I am paying for the hotel." (of course to the hotel)



    I think you mean "Por" and "Pagar"

    "Pago la pizza" is simply "I pay the pizza" "Pago por la pizza" is "I pay for the pizza"

    Quite simple

    Or "Lo hice por teléfono", which is "I did it OVER the phone"

    "Por" as in for something, or by means of something

    And please, as a last tip, you don't really need to use the personal pronoun "Yo pago la pizza" It's redundant, ugly, not useful, and wastes letters Unless you want to emphasize "who?", you don't really use personals; Spanish is pro-drop.


    "For" is already built into the verb "pagar." It means "pay for." Similarly, "mirar" means "look at." So you would say "Miro la television" and "Pago el hotel" = I look at the television; I pay for the hotel.

    It's INCORRECT in Spanish to say "pagar por" or "mirar a."


    "Quién está pagando el hotel?" or "Quién paga el hotel?"

    "Who's paying the hotel?" and "Who pays the hotel?"

    Translations respectively.


    "¿Quién está pagando el hotel?" = "Who is paying FOR the hotel".

    "¿Quién paga el hotel? = "Who pays FOR the hotel?"

    "pagar" = to pay FOR

    The word "for" is part of the verb.

    I know it can also mean just "to pay", but in this sentence we need the word "for" in English.

    It is acceptable with or without "por". It varies by region. Some people use "por"; other do not.


    My answer is correct, your answer is not correct


    What answer? Whose answer?

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