הוא צריך לקנות קפה עכשיו.

With vowel marks, it is:

הוּא צָרִיךְ לִקְנוֹת קָפֶה עַכְשָׁיו

A common transliteration is:

hu tsarikh liknot kafe akhshav

Approximate stress:

• tsa-RIKH
• lik-NOT
• ka-FE
• akh-SHAV

A few pronunciation notes:

• ך in צריך is pronounced like kh
• ח in עכשיו is usually the same kh sound
• ע in modern Israeli Hebrew is often very weak or silent

Hebrew usually does not use a present-tense form of to be in sentences like this, and it also does not need a helping verb like English does.

So הוא צריך does not literally match English word-for-word. Hebrew simply says he need/necessary, and natural English becomes he needs to or he has to.

In this kind of sentence, צריך functions like a modal-style word meaning needs to / has to.

For learners, the easiest pattern to remember is:

צריך + infinitive

So:

הוא צריך לקנות = he needs to buy

A useful thing to know is that צריך behaves differently from a normal English verb:

• it changes for gender and number
• it does not show person clearly by itself

Forms:

• צריך — masculine singular
• צריכה — feminine singular
• צריכים — masculine plural / mixed plural
• צריכות — feminine plural

Yes, Hebrew can sometimes leave out the subject if the context is obvious, but here הוא is very helpful because צריך by itself does not tell you the person.

For example, צריך could mean:

• I need if the speaker is male
• you need if speaking to one male
• he needs

So הוא makes it clear that the subject is he.

After צריך, Hebrew normally uses the infinitive form of the next verb.

So:

• לקנות = to buy

The prefix ל־ is usually the equivalent of English to in infinitives.

So the structure is:

צריך לקנות = need to buy

Also, לקנות is the infinitive of קנה (he bought / to buy).

Because Hebrew infinitives are formed according to verb patterns, not by simply adding one fixed ending.

The verb קנה belongs to a group where the infinitive is:

לִקְנוֹת

This is a normal pattern for many verbs whose dictionary form ends in ־ה.

So this is not irregular in a random way; it follows a common Hebrew pattern.

Because את is used only before a definite direct object.

Here, קפה is indefinite:

• coffee
• some coffee
• a coffee, depending on context

So you say:

לקנות קפה

But if you meant a specific coffee already known to both speaker and listener, you would say:

לקנות את הקפה

It can be somewhat flexible, depending on context.

In this sentence, קפה most naturally means:

• coffee as a thing/substance
• or some coffee
• or even a coffee in casual everyday usage

If you want to be more explicit, you could say:

• כוס קפה — a cup of coffee

But in real Hebrew, just קפה is very common and natural.

Yes. Hebrew word order is more flexible than English word order.

The original sentence is a very natural neutral order:

הוא צריך לקנות קפה עכשיו

But you could also say:

• עכשיו הוא צריך לקנות קפה
• הוא צריך עכשיו לקנות קפה

These versions shift the emphasis a little:

• putting עכשיו first can emphasize right now
• putting it before לקנות can emphasize the timing of the action

The original version is a good standard pattern for learners.

You change צריך so that it agrees with the subject.

Examples:

• היא צריכה לקנות קפה עכשיו — she needs to buy coffee now
• הם צריכים לקנות קפה עכשיו — they need to buy coffee now
• הן צריכות לקנות קפה עכשיו — they need to buy coffee now (all female)

This agreement is very important in Hebrew.

Common forms are:

• Present: הוא צריך לקנות קפה עכשיו — he needs to buy coffee now
• Past: הוא היה צריך לקנות קפה — he needed to / had to buy coffee
• Future: הוא יצטרך לקנות קפה — he will need to buy coffee

So instead of keeping צריך unchanged in all tenses, Hebrew uses different structures.

Usually צריך is best understood as needs to or has to.

It can sometimes feel strong, but it is often less forceful than must. A stronger word is:

חייב — must / absolutely has to

So:

• הוא צריך לקנות קפה = he needs to buy coffee / he has to buy coffee
• הוא חייב לקנות קפה = he must buy coffee

The exact strength depends on context, but this is a useful general distinction.