Okay!

Correct.

Almost, what you wrote means "The color of a chair is yellow.", which doesn't make sense as it implies all chairs are yellow.

[Die Farbe des Stuhles ist gelb.]

Same here, what you wrote means "I'm sitting on a chair.", though this time around it's a perfectly fine sentence. But if you want an exact translation of the english sentence it's [Ich sitze auf dem Stuhl.]

Same here, perfectly fine sentence, but an exact translation of the english sentence is [Ich setze mich auf den Stuhl.]

Almost correct. [Der Bezug des Stuhles ist aus Baumwolle.] And [Stuhl] is actually the genitive case in this sentence.

Wessen Bezug ist aus Baumwolle? (Which cover is cotton?)

Der des Stuhles. (The chair's.)

= genitive case

Correct.

Almost. [Sie legen das Buch auf den Stuhl.]

It's just [Stühle], otherwise correct.

Again, just drop the n and you're good to go.

[Du gehst zu den Stühlen.]

[Nach] is generally used when you go to a specific place, while you use [zu] when you're going to a person or in this case an object.

An example with [nach]: Ich gehe nach McDonalds.

[Du kaufst die weißen Stühle]

Hi, SqueakyRat.
Danke schön!

Could you help me again?
I’m studying prepositions with a masculine noun.
I have too many sentences today.
I’d really appreciate it if you help me.


Ich nehme einen Apfel von einem Karton. =I take out an apple from a cardboard box.

Ich nehme einen Apfel von dem Karton. =I take out an apple from the cardboard box.

Ich gehe zu einem Karton. =I walk to a cardboard box.

Ich bringe einen Brief mit einem Karton. =I bring a letter with a cardboard box.

Ich bringe Briefe ohne einen Karton. =I bring letters without a cardboard box.

Ein Buch ist auf einem Karton. =A book is on a cardboard box.

Ich stellte ein Buch auf einen Karton. =I put a book on a cardboard box.

Bücher sind in einem Karton. =Books are in a cardboard box.

Ich trete in den Karton ein. =I enter into the cardboard box.

Ein Buch ist unter einem Karton. =A book is under a cardboard box.

Ich stellte ein Buch unter einen Karton. =I put a book under a cardboard box.

Ein Buch ist vor einem Karton. =A book is in front of a cardboard box.

Ich stellte ein Buch vor einen Karton. =I put a book in front of a cardboard box.

Ein Buch ist hinter einem Karton. =A book is behind a cardboard box.

Ich stellte ein Buch hinter einen Karton. =I put a book behind a cardboard box.


Danke!

Ich nehme einen Apfel aus einem Karton.

Ich nehme einen Apfel aus dem Karton.

Correct.

Not quite sure about the context here, are you saying you're bringing a letter that's inside a cardboard box? If so, your sentence is gramatically correct, (I'd rather say 'Ich bringe einen Brief in einem Karton' though.) but could it be that you're actually meaning a letter envelope instead of a cardboard box?

Same as above, might be correct, but I can't say as I'm not entirely sure what you want to say.

Correct, though it'd sound a little more natural if you use [liegt] instead of [ist].

[Ein Buch liegt auf einem Karton.] = A book is lying on a cardboard box.

If you're speaking in simple past, it's correct, if it's supposed to be simple present it's [stelle] and not [stellte] though.

You could also use the verb [legen] I'd say if you put the book on the box horizontally, use [legen], if you put it on the box vertically though, use [stellen]

And again, if your sentence is in simple past, it's [legte], in simple present it's [legen].

Correct.

[Ich steige in den Karton.]

Correct.

In this case you should use the verb [legen]. (If you [stell] it under the box, i.e. put it under the box vertically, the box will probably fall off.)

If you're describing something you've already done, it's [Ich legte ein Buch unter einen Karton.]

If it's something you're doing just now, it's [Ich lege ein Buch unter einen Karton.]

Correct.

Again, you can use both [stellen] and [legen] depending on how you put the book in front of the box and [stellte] is correct if you're talking in simple past.

Correct.

Same as before, both [stellen] and [legen] are fine, if your sentence is supposed to be in simple past, it's correct, otherwise it's [stelle].


You're welcome.

Hi. Thank you as always!:)

I just want an example sentence including “mit ＋　(article) ＋Karton”.

Do you have any better example sentenceｓ including “ohne ＋　(article) ＋Karton”?


I see. In English, you say “A book is on the box”, while in German, you say “is lying”. OK.
Then, if you say “I’m in the city”, what would you say it in German?
What about “I’m in the box”?

I have a question.
My text book says you usually use perfect tenses and don’t use simple past tenses. So I have decided not to study simple perfect for a while. (I’ll study it later.) What do you think of my idea?


I have rewritten the sentences.

Danke schön!

:ywave:

I see. How about [Der gebrauchte Fernseher, den ich bestellt habe, wird ohne den Karton geliefert.]

The used TV I've ordered is being delivered without the box.

In this cases I'd say exactly the same as in English. [Ich bin in der Stadt.] and [Ich bin in dem Karton.].

That's correct and in most normal conversations the simple past sentences I gave you might seem weird, (I'd say you most likely find sentences like that in a first person narrative.) the reason I brought simple past up in the first place was, because I wasn't sure if that's what you were trying to learn or if you simply made a typo when you wrote [stellte].

The sentence in perfect tense would be [Ich habe ein Buch auf/unter/vor/hinter den Karton gelegt.] or [Ich habe ein Buch auf/unter/vor/hinter den Karton gestellt.]

(The simple present examples "Ich lege ein Buch auf den Karton", etc. are still totally fine though.)

I don't know what a professional teacher would tell you but I guess it doesn't really matter if you learn the perfect tenses before you learn simple past. But I think simple past, as the name already implies, is easier to learn than the perfect tenses, so you might wanna get it out of the way first.

Do you use the simple past tenses in daily conversation?

I don’t think simple past is easy to learn because they are too complicated. There are too many words to learn.
If you use that in daily conversation, I think I should learn that first.
However, my textbook says that you read simple past only in novels.
Is that correct?
I don’t have any teachers.
I’m studying by myself.

Barely. As I said:

Yes, it's not necissarily easy, but I think it's easier to learn than perfect tense, the grammatical structure is simpler.

That being said, if you decide to learn the perfect tenses first and manage to do well, I can't think of any reason why you shouldn't learn them first if that's what you want to.

SqudakyRat, danke!

Hi.
Could someone tell me the difference between “Arbeiter” and “Angestellte”?

Danke.

Hi,

Simply speaking, Arbeiter refers mostly to people doing manual labor, getting paid for the amount of work they've done.

Angestellte on the other hand would be more comparable to salarymen, working for a company, getting paid a fixed salary etc.

There's probably more to it, but that's all you'd really have to know at this point to differentiate. For a more detailed explanation someone else has to step in, I'm afraid.