# zahlen vs. bezahlen



## will8866

Can someone explain the difference between zahlen and bezahlen?


----------



## andy2050

"zahlen" and "bezahlen" have both equal meaning: "to pay/ to disburse". 
I think there is no difference between this two words. Both are used a lot in day-to-day life. Perhaps someone knows the difference, but if it exist it should be realy minimal.


----------



## ABBA Stanza

andy2050 said:


> I think there is no difference between this two words. (...) Perhaps someone knows the difference, but if it exist it should be realy minimal.


For some reason, I always say:

_"Ich zahle Steuer"_ (not "Ich _bezahle_ Steuer"), but
_"Ich bezahle die Rechnung"_ (not "Ich _zahle_ die Rechnung").

Not sure why. Maybe it's the fine difference between "paying the money" (= _zahlen?_) and "paying the bill/check" (= _bezahlen?_)?

Abba


----------



## berndf

You would normally use "bezahlen" only in connection with a *specific* amount or debt. This expl But this is only a tendency. "Ich bezahle Steuern" instead of "Ich zahle Steuern" (@Abba: you always use plural in this set phrase) would be unusual but not wrong and one does occasionally hear this.


----------



## Hutschi

In some cases there are differences in grammar. ABBA Stanza already told, that in many cases it shows the direction. 
But it depends on context.
_
Du must das Haus bezahlen. _This means: Du must_ für das _Haus zahlen. (With accusative object). 
_
Du must mit Geld zahlen._ This means: Du must_ mit dem_ Geld bezahlen.
Compare:_ Mit Vieh zahlte/bezahlte man früher, ehe es Geld gab._ 


---
Figurative:
_Das musst du mir bezahlen._ = Das musst du mir büßen.
It is possible to say in this context: _Dafür musst du zahlen!_ and _Dafür musst du bezahlen!
__Das musst du mir zahlen._ -> This form is not possible in this context (Das musst du mir büßen.)


----------



## ABBA Stanza

berndf said:


> (@Abba: you always use plural in this set phrase)


OK, so I must say "Ich zahle _Steuer*n*_" (with the "n"), although I'm only a _*Steuer*zahler_ (without the "n").

Nice to know that German (like English) has its little idiosyncrasies, too! 

Abba


----------



## will8866

Is "bezahlen" not a transitive verb because of the "be"? How come phrase like

Du must mit dem Geld bezahlen.

exists?

Or... there is no concept like transitive verb in German?


----------



## ABBA Stanza

will8866 said:


> Is "bezahlen" not a transitive verb because of the "be"? How come phrase like
> 
> Du must mit dem Geld bezahlen.
> 
> exists?
> 
> Or... there is no concept like transitive verb in German?


A _transitive_ verb is one that *can* be used with a direct object (e.g., _"Ich bezahle die Rechnung"_). However, that doesn't mean to say that a direct object _must_ be present (e.g., _"Ich bezahle jetzt" _is also OK).

In contrast, an _intransitive_ verb can only be used without a direct object (e.g. _kommen_, _aufwachen_, etc.).

Abba


----------



## berndf

ABBA Stanza said:


> OK, so I must say "Ich zahle _Steuer*n*_" (with the "n"), although I'm only a *Steuer*_zahler_ (without the "n").





ABBA Stanza said:


> Nice to know that German (like English) has its little idiosyncrasies, too!
> 
> Abba



 
Most speakers apply the logic that in compound nouns only the last one is declined. That is why there is no plural n in "Steuerzahler". But this logic is not uncontested. Some people (though not many) insist it should be "Speisenkarte" rather than "Speisekarte". You might have heard of Karl Valentin's and Liesl Karlstadt's humoristic reflections whether it should be "Semmelknödel" or "Semmelnknödel" or "Semmelknödeln" or maybe "Semmelnknödeln".


----------



## Alan Evangelista

Also, l believe that "bezahlen" is preferred over "zahlen" for paying somebody for his/her service (the direct object is a person)?

Example:

Ich bezahle den Maler / die Putzfrau.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi, Alan,

It depends on context:

Ich bezahle den Maler/die Putzfrau. -- Here "Ich zahle ..." is wrong.

Ich zahle dem Maler/der Putzfrau 20 Euro pro Stunde. Here "zahle" is better style, but "bezahle" is possible.


----------



## Perseas

Hutschi said:


> Ich bezahle den Maler/die Putzfrau. -- Here "Ich zahle ..." is wrong.
> 
> Ich zahle dem Maler/der Putzfrau 20 Euro pro Stunde. Here "zahle" is better style, but "bezahle" is possible.


One can deduce from the examples that "zahlen" (or possibly "bezahlen") is used when the direct object is "money", but you only use "bezahlen" when the direct object is a person.


----------



## berndf

Perseas said:


> One can deduce from the examples that "zahlen" (or possibly "bezahlen") is used when the direct object is "money", but you only use "bezahlen" when the direct object is a person.


Indeed. _Zahlen_ requires the payment as the accusative object. If the beneficiary is the accusative object _bezahlen_ is required.


----------



## Hutschi

Optionally you can use a preposition together with the receiver.
Ich zahle (coll. also bezahle) 50 Euro an Otto. In this case also the Receiver of the money is in accusative.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> In this case also the Receiver of the money is in accusative.


It is not an accusative object, though. The beneficiary may occur as a dative object: _Ich zahle ihm ein Gehalt_.


----------



## Hutschi

“An Otto“ is a Prepositional object according to my school time.
But it is a prepositional complement if I learned it right in our forum.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> “An Otto“ is a Prepositional object according to my school time.


Correct. It is a _prepositional_ object and not an _accusative_ object.


Hutschi said:


> But it is a prepositional complement if I learned it right in our forum.


An _object_ is a type of _complement_.


----------



## JClaudeK

Hier wird der Gebrauch  gut erklärt


> *bezahlen / zahlen:* Zwischen _bezahlen _und _zahlen _besteht ein Bedeutungsunterschied, der jedoch vielfach nicht mehr bewusst ist, sodass beide Verben weitgehend unterschiedslos gebraucht werden; _bezahlen _kann man eine Ware, eine [Arbeits]leistung o. Ä., indem man einen Geldbetrag dafür hingibt: _Er hat die Bücher bezahlt. Diese Arbeit wird schlecht bezahlt._ Demgegenüber wird _zahlen _sinngemäß nur auf Wörter bezogen, die einen Geldbetrag bezeichnen, einen Preis, eine Summe o. Ä.: _Sie zahlte einen hohen Preis. Die Stadt zahlte Unsummen für Gemälde und Skulpturen berühmter Meister._ In manchen Fällen kann sowohl das eine als auch das andere gemeint sein. Dann sind beide Verben möglich: _Ich habe die Steuern schon gezahlt / bezahlt. Haben wir die Miete schon gezahlt / bezahlt? .... _


----------



## Alan Evangelista

> In manchen Fällen kann sowohl das eine als auch das andere gemeint sein. Dann sind beide Verben möglich: _Ich habe die Steuern schon gezahlt / bezahlt. Haben wir die Miete schon gezahlt / bezahlt? _



These "exceptions" go against the whole idea and makes the distinction between both words confusing IMHO. The Duden's definition of "zahlen" contains the 2 meanings: pay an amount of money (1a) and pay a debt/bill (1b), so I think it is better to stick with it.


----------



## berndf

Alan Evangelista said:


> These "exceptions" go against the whole idea and makes the distinction between both words confusing IMHO. The Duden's definition of "zahlen" contains the 2 meanings: pay an amount of money (1a) and pay a debt/bill (1b), so I think it is better to stick with it.


They are not exception but the examples are in line what has been explained before. The direct object of _zahlen_ is the amount or means of payment. The direct object of _bezahlen_ is the recipient of or reason for payment. Steuer or Miete cam be interpreted as expressing the amount paid or it can be interpreted as the the reason or recipient of the parment. That's why bor that verbs are possible.


----------



## Alan Evangelista

berndf said:


> They are not exception but the examples are in line what has been explained before. The direct object of _zahlen_ is the amount or means of payment. The direct object of _bezahlen_ is the recipient of or reason for payment. Steuer or Miete cam be interpreted as expressing the amount paid or it can be interpreted as the the reason or recipient of the parment. That's why bor that verbs are possible.



Thank you for the explanation, it become clearer now to me.


----------



## Digital Linguist

ABBA Stanza said:


> For some reason, I always say:
> 
> _"Ich zahle Steuer"_ (not "Ich _bezahle_ Steuer"), but
> _"Ich bezahle die Rechnung"_ (not "Ich _zahle_ die Rechnung").
> 
> Not sure why. Maybe it's the fine difference between "paying the money" (= _zahlen?_) and "paying the bill/check" (= _bezahlen?_)?
> 
> Abba


The Google Ngram backs this up:





Thank you for your comment.


----------



## Digital Linguist

berndf said:


> It is not an accusative object, though. The beneficiary may occur as a dative object: _Ich zahle ihm ein Gehalt_.


I completely agree with berndf, but I got to wondering what happens when the beneficiary is mentioned, but not the amount of payment.  For example, how would I say:



> I am paying him.



vs.



> I am paying him $85.



I'm not a native speaker of German, so I rely a lot on machine translators to answer my questions and from them, it looks as if _the recipient of pay is in accusative case if the amount paid to the recipient *is not mentioned*._

So, in the examples above, you'd have:



> Ich bezahle ihn.



and



> Ich zahle ihm 85 Dollar.



Note, too, how the verb changes from "bezahlen" to "zahlen" when the amount is mentioned.


----------



## bearded

Was ist gängiger, _eine Geldstrafe/Geldbuße zahlen_ oder _bezahlen_?


----------



## berndf

Digital Linguist said:


> Thank you for your comment.


_Bezahlen _can only apply to a concrete liability which is settled by the payment and not the an abstract liability as in _ich zahle Steuern_. You could, e.g., say _Ich habe meine Steuern für 2020 *be*zahlt_ (_I have paid my taxes for 2020_).


----------



## Frieder

bearded said:


> Was ist gängiger, _eine Geldstrafe/Geldbuße zahlen_ oder _bezahlen_?



Direkt vor Ort: zahlen. Per Banküberweisung: bezahlen. Kann aber variieren


----------



## JClaudeK

bearded said:


> Was ist gängiger, _eine Geldstrafe/Geldbuße zahlen_ oder _bezahlen_?


Das hält sich in etwa die Waage: 
"Geldstrafe zahlen" 165 Googletreffer
"Geldstrafe bezahlen" 153 Googletreffer

Cross-posted


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> _Bezahlen _can only apply to a concrete liability which is settled by the payment and not the an abstract liability. You could, e.g., say _Ich habe meine Steuern für 2020 *be*zahlt_ (_I have paid by taxes for 2020_).


I agree in the given context.

In a threat, like "Das wirst du mir bezahlen" ("You will have to pay for this!"- or "mit seinem Leben bezahlen" (to pay with ones life) there is another context and usage. The first can mean money, but mostly it does not. More like "tit for tat" or more than "tit".


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> I agree in the given context.


Not only in *this* context. _Bezahlen_ must *always *refer to a concrete liability (or to a concrete set of liabilities) because it implies settlement of that liability (or liabilities). This is also true for figurative uses.


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> Not only in *this* context. _Bezahlen_ must *always *refer to a concrete liability (or to a concrete set of liabilities) because it implies settlement of that liability (or liabilities). This is also true for figurative uses.


In "Das wirst du mit deinem Leben bezahlen!" - there is usually no liability. Or do I understand this wrong? It is revange (Rache), not liability. Or does liability include "Rache"?


----------



## Kajjo

bearded said:


> Was ist gängiger, _eine Geldstrafe/Geldbuße zahlen_ oder _bezahlen_?


_Er musste eine Geldbuße zahlen. <only "zahlen" is idiomatic>

Er wurde beim Falschparken erwischt und hat die 20 Euro sofort bezahlt. <both possible, "bezahlen" more common>_


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> "Das wirst du mit deinem Leben bezahlen!" - there is usually no liability.


"Das" ist doch das, was immer mit dem Leben bezahlt wird. Genau so eine Form von "liability" ist gemeint: Nenne es im Deutschen vielleicht so etwas wie "Aufrechnung" gegeneinander. Das gilt auch für übertragene Dinge wie Verfehlungen, Sünden, Handeln.


----------



## berndf

Hutschi said:


> In "Das wirst du mit deinem Leben bezahlen!" - there is usually no liability. Or do I understand this wrong? It is revange (Rache), not liability. Or does liability include "Rache"?


I said:


berndf said:


> This is also true for figurative uses.


And this is a figurative use.


----------



## Hutschi

berndf said:


> And this is a figurative use.


Thanks. You are right.


----------



## JClaudeK

Hutschi said:


> "Das wirst du mit deinem Leben bezahlen!"
> 
> 
> berndf said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is a figurative use.
Click to expand...

Für mich ist "etw. mit dem Leben bezahlen" nicht bildlich gemeint, sondern ganz konkret: 
z.B._ "Als Journalistin hat sie ihren Einsatz für die Wahrheit mit dem Leben bezahlt."_


----------



## berndf

JClaudeK said:


> Für mich ist "etw. mit dem Leben bezahlen" nicht bildlich gemeint, sondern ganz konkret:
> z.B._ "Als Journalistin hat sie ihren Einsatz für die Wahrheit mit dem Leben bezahlt."_


Es ist konkret aber trotzdem bildlich, da es ja nicht um Geld oder geldähnliche Waren handelt.


----------



## JClaudeK

So gesehen hast Du recht.


----------

