1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "Ihr habt Hosen."

"Ihr habt Hosen."

Translation:You have pants.

January 8, 2013



Can anyone tell the difference between "Er" and "Ihr" when spoken by the robot? They both sound like "ear" when I think "Er" should sound like "air".


I have no idea why you you downvoted. You are correct, er should sound more like air. Ihr is more like ear. You had a valid question.


One of the most frustrating things on Duolingo. Half the wrong answers I give are because there is no audible difference between Ihr and Er. But there should be.


There is audible difference, I guess we become used to it.


Sometimes when they say "essen" it sound like "ess"


I get confused when there's no context, how are we meant to guess?


The same way you did with English. It just takes time and mistakes.


This really confused me as a British English speaker! For me, 'pants' are underwear :S


In the USA, pants are pants. :P


God bless america!


You meant United States, because America is the whole continent.


Hey, Canadians call pants pants too.


I call 'em trousers a lot, actually.


I believe a lot of Mexicans speak Spanish and they do call pants "pantalones"


Same with Australians


Im English and i call pants ,pants too so i think you have to be in a certain part of England for pants to mean underwear


Not true. "America" is a commonly accepted shortening of "The United States of America", just like how "Mexico" is a common shortening of "The United States of Mexico".


United Mexican States, but ya got close enough there, mate.


It's commonly accepted by people from the States... Not by Mexicans


Try calling a Canadian an American. They will laugh or it'd be taken offensive. Hell, even Germans call us Amerikaner/in.



It is true though. Most european countries act as though Canada is non-existent, it's quite irritating, really.


Yeah but when people say America, they are usually talking about the united states, sooo...


"American" is the only demonym for people from the US.

"America" as opposed to "The Americas," "North America," etc. refers to the USA. There's no other country with America in its name. However, it's officially The United States of America.

For the demonym, there's no other choice but American.


Or atleast us Americans.


There's no such continent as America, only North or South. They can also be referred to as the Americas. S denoting more than one.


yes but it never said continent, it said "the lands". see what i mean?


According to my dictionary: America - the lands of North America and the lands of South America.


God bless North America.


Two continents, North and South


No, actually. That’s “North America”... USA=United States Of America=America...


No, North America and South America are continents. There's no continent called America. "American" is also the only demonym for someone from the US, and the USA is the only nation with America as part of its name.

Canadians are North American, not American.

You can look this up in many places, or you can simply listen to people who speak English. In common use, America refers to the USA and there's no other country where its inhabitants call themselves American.

Maybe you want to check an encyclopedia.


Quite right, Eduardo. I once had a row with a Canadian, when i asked him politely "Are you American?" he then got rather angry at me. .I then stated, that i didn't suggest he was a United States citizen and implied he was a American ( continent resident). I like US citizens but unfairly have a mistrust of Canadians to this day.


Yeah I guess America alone would be the combination of North and South America?


How come people from Canada are Canadian, and people from Mexico are Mexican, but people from the U.S.A. are American? Technically wouldn't all of the above be American?


There are three AMERICAS: 1 North America: Canada, the United States AND Mexico. 2 Central America (the Panamanian States) 3 South America. They are all part of the " Americas." We English speakers' are lazy! We think to say the United States is too long. Too many letters! So we say America. Say that to anyone in Central or South America: " America!" And will they: " Who?' " What?" " Where?" " Which?" It happened to me in Brazil! And, rightly they put me in my place. Since then, I always use the correct word, the United States NOT America!


In the English language, whenever anyone referred to the original 13 colonies (which, prior to the revolutionary war were definitely not so united) and subsequent additions, rhey described them as America. North and South America ae often regarded as 2 separate continents so inhabitants are therefore denominated North or South Americans (not forgetting Cenrtral Americans). In Brazil I often hear Amerivans being referred to as North Americans and Brits - even if they come from one of the other three countries - as English.


I recently watched a documentary on Youtube, which was investigating the 1812 War - the one concerning the new United States and the (remaining British colony, Canada) The States' wanted to invade Canada and try to push the Brits' out. The same programme, claimed that there were actually 15 colonies. That is East and West Florida. East Florida was French and West Florida was Spanish - or vice versa. Both accepted slaves escaping from the other 13 English colonies and gave them equality. The " Monroe Doctrine" of 1820 gave the new United States'' ' carte blanche' - to rule over and dominate the rest of the Americas. When we discover and investigate these things for ourselves, we may begin to realise just how one country, the United States, has powerfully influenced the rest of the Americas. When experiencing the Learning Curve of language acquisition - especially in regard to the English/es language/s, we need to see how these "Englishes" (USA, Canadian, British, Australian, etc) each have taken on a life of its own. In English we have very broad choices: Eg,: pants, slacks, trousers. My English teachers' said that in English " Context gives Meaning" This confusion between different words can perhaps be reduced by looking for the Context.


Once again, you have ignored the Panamanian States, which are neither North or South America bur Central America. It is interesting: no has bothered to ask the Pan-Americans!


You forgot Central America.


And we DEFINITELY don't want God to bless those other Americas, just The good 'ole U.S. of A! ;-)


I live in the USA and have called pants 'pants' all my life. I have never called them trousers. I have read the word trousers in books though.


No. Having been to America, I know trousers are pants over there.


How often do you visit America?


Once in the mid 1800s. I believe the term everyone is looking for is pantaloons.


Glen, usually here in America, we say pants. Trousers is not not usually used by us. It is used in British English to describe pants, if I am not mistaken. The term trousers is rarely used amongst us. So, you'd be better off just calling pants, pants. :)


I say "me britches!"


Those who say "nobody in the US says trousers" acts as if there's nobody in the country over age 50. It was a fairly common word when I was growing up, and my father probably wears trousers, unless he's wearing dungarees. I would have been wearing pants or jeans instead.


But you can use trousers, if you like. It is not a wrong term to use. It is still accepted and people will still know what you're talking about.


People will generally understand you, but no one seriously uses the word trousers so you will sounds very old fashioned / British.


No, they're actually not. Not unless you're 98 years old and grew up filthy rich.


Here in Australia, pants = trousers. Bloody pommies...


Same, I am from England and I moved country and everyone was like 'I like your pants' and I was thinking 'can they see my underwear???'


Not exactly underwear, but underpants = die Unterhose


Two languages for the price of one! A youthful taste for British children's books spared me some interesting surprises.


It's from your silly word "Pantaloons."


Indeed, my reaction was, "I surely hope so" -- yet, I learned English in the US and Canada, but my family was quite clear about the difference between pants and trousers. I wonder if Americans wearing their pants on the outside is not just a symptom of informality -- or carelessness, perhaps


Superman does


Technically those are shorts worn over tights. It's based on the costumes of circus acrobats the time. Batman, however...


Same here. It's very weird discussing underwear.


Are you sure? I always thought it was "panties", not "pants"

  • 107

Panties are only female bottom underwear (top underwear being a bra which is short for brassiere). Just to clarify, NOBODY calls them top underwear and bottom underwear, but the term underwear can include both or specifically refer to just the bottoms. You should see the number of names for men's underwear, which vary by region.


So is it trousers thats widely used in Britain? Is it the same in Scotland and Ireland?


Yes. Scotland and Wales and Ireland use trousers, pants are underwear though we may call them scants or other local words.


"Pants" is short for pantaloons, which has always meant trousers in English speaking countries. "Knickers" is short for knickerbockers, which are pants that go down to slightly below the knee where they are bunched up or strapped above the stockings (socks). Underpants, panties and underwear are worn under the pants.

I don't want to get into how Brits managed to change the fundamental meanings of the words, but keep in mind that the English have changed our language in many ways where other countries have maintained the use of more traditional words or meanings.

You will probably find more examples as you study more. For example, England eschews the word garbage for the newer word rubbish, while in the US, garbage, rubbish and trash all have specific meanings. Detritus would be rubbish, not garbage, for example.

Just remember not to accuse Americans of changing your language when you changed ours.


You mean panties ? 'cos in Britain we call that as underwear. Not pants


I was also taught British English , but we just call them "pant". If there is more then one pant , then its called "trousers" !!


What is the exactly translation of "pants"? Die Hose or Die Hosen?


Even though "pants" or "trousers" are plural in English, in German "die Hose" is singular, as is "die Jeans".

'Meine Hose ist zu kurz.' looks like 'My pants/trousers is too short', which wouldn't work in English but does in German. The plural "die Hosen" would refer to multiple pairs of pants/trousers. A school child has grown during the summer and now 'Die Hosen sind zu kurz.' Time to go school shopping!


This was very helpful! Thank you!

[deactivated user]

    Thanks, it's so much clear now! I was confused because it's singular in French too: "le pantalon"


    Thanks, I understand now.


    That's not necessarily true, "die Hosen" or "ein Paar Hosen" meaning just one pair of pants does exist in German, it's just not used as frequently (and maybe getting outdated?) Cf.: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Hose ("häufig auch im Plural mit singularischer Bedeutung").


    Die Hose= 1 pair of pants, die Hosen=multiple pairs of pants


    Since there is only one word for singular and plural pants and trousers in English both are correct, it depends on the context.


    Mostly there is NO context though!


    If this was a question, can i say Habt ihr hosen?


    Yes, this is the correct word order for a question.


    Hosen, does it translate to trousers or underwear? I'm british


    How do you know when Ihr is "you" and when it's "her"?


    "Her has pants" doesn't make much sense, does it? Besides, "habt" it only used for "you plural". For "she" (sie) it will be "hat".

    There is always something that tells you the correct meaning. It may be a verb form, the case that is appropriate or just context.


    it said that ihr habt was "you have" shouldn't it be ihr seid... please explain I thought haben was only for she....


    You're mixed up with the verbs. There are two verbs we're dealing with here: sein and haben. Sein is be, haben is have.

    The conjugation of sein...

    • ich bin
    • du bist
    • er/sie/es ist
    • wir sind
    • ihr seid
    • sie;Sie sind

    The conjugation of haben...

    • ich habe
    • du hast
    • er/sie/es hat
    • wir haben
    • ihr habt
    • sie;Sie haben


    Y'all isn't a word, is not proper English.


    Although not proper, it is acceptable in American English (specifically in the southern states) and Duo will acknowledge it for plural 'you.'


    Does "Hosen" have a singular form? I'm assuming not.


    Yes, die Hose. Unlike English, most other languages don't refer to a single pair of pants as a plural form. So, die Hose means one pair of pants while die Hosen means two or more pairs of pants.


    Italian uses the plural like english altough even the singular is by someone (especially taylors) used. The same is for glasses: almost everyone use the plural but the opticians prefer the singular. In german Brille is singular


    Yes, it is "die Hose".


    "Ihr" is always plural "you"?


      Yes. Specifically, it's plural informal. Like, if you were talking to your friends. It's the plural equivalent of du, which is also informal. Note that ihr only needs a capital letter at the beginning of sentences.

      If you were talking to an older person or a customer for example, you would use Sie, regardless of whether you are talking to one person or several. Note that the polite Sie always has a capital letter, even in the middle of sentences.


      Why not "Du habt Hosen"? When do you use Ihr instead of Du??


      Du is singular, ihr is plural. Keep in mind that one says du hast and not du habt.


      why it is not Ihr hast instead of Ihr habt , Ihr is informal plural of You I guess

      • ich habe
      • du hast
      • er/sie/es hat
      • wir haben
      • ihr habt
      • sie;Sie haben


      why is 'you guys got pants' wrong?


      That would technically mean you guys received pants, in correct English it should be: you've got pants or you [guys] have got pants


      Why isn't it 'ihr haben'?


      I know in english pants is always plural....is German the same way? there is never a time when I'd say "hose" right?


        No - unlike in English, a single pair of pants is referred to in the singular in German. Ich habe eine neue Hose, for example.


        Y'all is a regional thing. It is not the correct answer to 'Ihr'! You should accept all forms of 'you guys' (which the english language does not have a proper gender neutral form of).


        OK, I just got corrected from "I have pants" (it was Ihr habt Hosen so I should have put "You have pants") to "Y'all have pants". Duolingo just used y'all.


        Makes sense because "y'all" is informal plural 'you'...same as "ihr"


        is it "you" plural or formal ?


          ihr - plural informal
          du - singular informal
          Sie - singular/plural formal


          I thought ihr was “you” formal? No?


          No. As a subject pronoun, ihr is informal and plural.


          I have put "you have pants" an it said it is wrong and "Y'all have pants" is right. really?!


          Y'all? Well ok, I am from Alabama!


          Why not only pants .


          Because "pants" does not mean the same thing as "You have pants".

          You forgot to translate the words ihr habt.


          Ok, here in the states, no one says trousers, lol.


          Of course we do. Not all of us are teenagers.


          Y'all is for Yocals. What a ridiculous answer.


          Ihr and Er sound the same. Messes me up.


          why ihr and not du?


          Because the speaker is talking to several people at once.

          du is used when you're speaking to one person, ihr when speaking to several of them.


          Whats crazy about this sentence is that in english "pants" is both singular and plural and "you" is both singular and plural. So in english the sentence "You have pants" could refer to a single person having one pair or many pairs of pants and also refer to many people having one pair or many pairs of pants.


          Did anyone else get " y'all " as the correct translation???


          I said, "I have pants." It was incorrect. Why? In English, "I have pants" can mean one or many pairs.


          ihr habt means "you have", not "I have".


          I have more errors with the male robot speaking because he doesn't enunciate very well, often dropping the volume of his voice you you can't hear the work clearly! So frustrating!


          I've made the same mistake confusing "Er" and "Ihr". However, "habt" is clearly (sort of) articulated which suggests the proceeding word is more likely to be "Ihr" than "Er". This is because if the first word was "Er", the second word would have to be "hast", not "habt". Please correct me if I'm wrong ;)


          Close— if the subject is Er, then the verb is hat.

          The verb form hast goes with the subject du.


          I'm finally hearing the difference (sometimes) between ihr and er, but I still have trouble telling "r" from "h" sometimes. I thought they said "Ihr habt Rosen'. :-(


          Why is the translation for Ihr habt Hosen "You have pants" right but when I translate "I am wearing pants" to Ich trage Hose it says it is wrong and wants me to add "eine". If that is the case then why is "You have pants" not Ihr habe EINE Hosen? This seems weird to me.


          eine Hose is one pair of pants.

          Hosen is multiple pairs of pants.

          In the “I am wearing” scenario, “pants” must refer to one pair, since people don’t generally wear multiple pairs of pants at once. But in the “you have” scenario, “pants” most likely refers to multiple pairs of pants.

          (Ihr habt eine Hose may also be accepted, though.)

          eine Hosen does not make sense — that would be like “a shirts” (singular article with plural word).


          Is is correct if I translate the sentence like this: You all have pairs of pants. Because it is plural, and I think it is right, but Duo doesn't accept it. Thanks!


          In general, translate ihr simply as “you”, not “you all”.


          Pants= hose or Hosen?



          See the comment thread started by mvcmboucas.


          Get rid of the female voice or use a Better one


          I have a doubt. In my country we commonly use this expression when someone is brave, it could be used with that meaning in Germany?


          No, it doesn’t have that meaning in Germany.

          But we have a similar expression involving wearing trousers: sie hat (in der Beziehung) die Hosen an “she wears the pants (in the relationship)” means that she is the dominant person in the relationship.

          Or similarly, zeig ihr, wer die Hosen anhat! “show her who wears the pants! = show her who’s the boss!”


          In the USA we have the same expression, the one who wears the pants in the family.


          In British English, that would be "she wears the trousers"... https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wear-the-trousers I would definitely understand the expression "she wears the pants", but it would sound like an "americanism" to the UK english ear.


          Yes, trousers would likewise be well understood here but would sound very British.


          Mizinamo, you have just informed UK English speakers that (she) wears the underwear garment covering the lower abdomen and genitalia. Shorts in the US (?) would seem to be Pants in the UK, or sometimes knickers for women's pants. Are you effectively telling us that UK English is no longer acceptable on the course? Knowing and allowing regional variations in English has been a big part of Duo's global success. I decided to try to learn German to honour Europe and because it is useful. But both French and German have featured more exclusively US English translations than ever before. It is that enforced learning of sometimes baffling US terms and the apparent change towards a USA only app model, that is saddening fans of Duo as a Global phenomenon.


          Are you effectively telling us that UK English is no longer acceptable on the course?


          Duolingo courses use US English to teach other languages, and this hasn't changed.

          However, UK equivalents will generally be accepted in translations, where this does not cause confusion.

          But if you read something in English from Duolingo, you can assume that it's US English -- the language spoken where Duolingo comes from (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and the language spoken by more people than British English.


          In the US we have something similar - put your big boy/girl pants on. It means to do what you have to do, even if you don't want to do it.


          I don't know about Germany, but that's an interesting usage. Which country are you from?


          Oh, I am from Mexico.


          Ah, cool. Always interesting to learn more about my neighbor country.


          In Australian and British English, trousers and pants are synonymous. We can use the words to describe both suit trousers and suit pants. The word, Pant/s anyway, is/are derived from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries` word: " Pantaloons."


          Can you make it easier for people from the UK by also accepting "Trousers"


          There are already accepted alternatives with “trousers”.


          In NZ pants can be both underwear or pants as in trousers. It is all down to context


          How come in this sentence pants is plural (Hosen) but in other examples like “Ich trage einen Hose” it’s singular?


          Because in this sentence the speaker is saying that the group of listeners has multiple pairs of pants.

          (Which also makes more sense than five people all having to share one pair of pants between them.)

          While in Ich trage eine Hose, you're just wearing one pair of pants at a time.


          Just a suggestion, but surely Duolingo could enable the ability to set the language you are learning in so that this confusion can be avoided? eg USA English for pants and UK English for trousers.


          Duo does allow you to choose the language you are learning in -- you can learn English from German or from French, for example.

          But there is only one English to choose from as a base language, i.e. US English. (Similarly, you can only use German-from-Germany if you choose "German" as your base language; Helvetisms or Austriacisms will generally not be accepted there.)

          There is no option for UK/AU/NZ/IN/SA/... English as a learning language on Duolingo.


          Thanks for the reply. I realise that there is no option to select the different versions of English, I was just suggesting that it would be good. I have never called trousers pants - to me pants are underwear, so when I put in Trousers as an answer for Hosen, it a little annoying to be told I'm wrong, when I know it's correct. Hopefully Duolingo can address this sometime in the future.


          What's the difference between Ihr habt hosen and Du hat hosen


          Ihr habt Hosen: You guys (plural) have pants / trousers. Du hast Hosen: You (singular) have pants / trousers.


          Thanks. I guess I found it a little confusing to exemplify "You (plural) have pants" - it seems like a very uncommon thing to say, especially in comparison to "You (singular) have pants".


          Shopping for school clothes and talking to your kids... “Okay, you have trousers/pants, now we need to go get you some nice shirts.”


          Is duolingo based in America or England? Does Hosen mean trousers or underwear


          They're based in the USA. Hosen means trousers.


          Yes, which is the same as pants.

          I checked the OED, and you can't get more British or more authoritative than that, and it defines pants as an abbreviation for pantaloons. Those are trousers. It also says that the abbreviation is vulgar in British English. But it seems to be commonplace these days.


          Calm down there sonny. This guy was clearly asking between trousers and underpants to avoid the confusion the term pants had been causing and so I answered in kind. So take a step down from the soapbox and learn to adapt your language to your audience. It's a skill called code switching and it's useful in life.

          Also, the OED has trousers and pants the same only in a North American context. In British English it is listed as meaning underpants. I can assure you that this had caused embarrassing confusion for several friends. Sadly, the bar in rural Essex was not equipped with an OED be to consult, but we cleared it up.


          Nope. The OED is an English dictionary, not an American one and it doesn't list underwear as a definition. Perhaps you can find a library somewhere and see for yourself.


          No, it is a British dictionary that tries to document the English language "across the English-speaking world". As such they list definitions for British and American English with indicators as to which is which.

          Fortunately, it's the information age and the OED partnered with Lexico to provide the free version of their dictionary online: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pants

          Or, to get the full Oxbridge effect, this is the Cambridge dictionary as well: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pants

          Both are quite clear, as are the dozens of British folk in this thread telling you their experience. But this is again besides the point. Trousers, in the context of the question, is used to clarify that we don't mean the sense of underwear.



          Your version is obviously newer than mine, since I have the hard copy of the OED, but if anything that proves that the British changed it and it happened relatively recently. There is no root for the word that refers to underwear.


          To say that there is no root for pants that means underwear is demonstrably untrue and willfully ignorant as you have used these common roots in this thread.

          It's also again missing the entire point as I said, but you ignore it again.

          But, to demonstrate: Merriam Webster, the definitive American English dictionary, documents the usage of "underpants" in American English to refer to the lower undergarment as far back as 1925. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/underpants

          It also has the diminutive "pantie" being used for the female lower undergarment as far back as 1908. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pantie

          Both clearly show that the root word of pants could be used in American English to refer to undergarments, which were at one time just loose short trousers resembling pantaloons.

          Also, the many many British people that are saying here they have used it like that for some time. Do you think this is some British conspiracy too embarrass you?


          Why don't they accept 'trousers'?


          We do.

          What was your entire answer?


          This was so annoying because hose means trousers not pants which would be underwear in Europe pants=trousers and it should accept trousers as the translation


          This was so annoying because hose means trousers not pants which would be underwear in Europe

          Duolingo uses American English to teach German. So if you see "pants", you can assume that it refers to outerwear, not underwear.

          it should accept trousers as the translation

          It does. British English is usually accepted in German-to-English translation exercises, unless the result would be confusing to an American English speaker. (For example, we don't accept entrée in the meaning "A smaller dish served before the main course of a meal" to translate Vorspeise, because in the US, entrée refers to the main course of a meal, so if you translate Vorspeise with entrée, it's not clear whether you have understood the sense of the German word.)


          Yes, in England the word is trousers. Pants are worn underneath.


          Can anyone explain the difference between Hose and Hosen


          Can anyone explain the difference between Hose and Hosen

          Hose is singular (one pair of pants)

          Hosen is plural (several pairs of pants)

          Just "pants" in English could be either -- "I'm wearing pants today" probably means that you're wearing one pair, while "I bought new pants yesterday" could be either one pair or multiple pairs.


          Duolingo uses American English.


          Trousers is American English. It's not as commonly used in the US as it was 50 years ago but that doesn't mean that it stopped being American English.


          Why is it 'Hosen' and not 'Hose' ?


          Why is it 'Hosen' and not 'Hose' ?

          Because the speaker is saying that the listeners have multiple pairs of pants -- hence plural Hosen instead of singular eine Hose (for just one pair of pants).


          Forget the US/UK two different words for the same thing. I am puzzled about why Hosen can exist in the singular. Surely Hosen means trousers/ pants, and you can't have one pant/ trouser?


          You can't have one pant/trouser in English, but you can have eine Hose in German just as you can have (say) one shirt in English.

          Grammatically, Hose acts like "shirt", not like "pants": it can have a singular and a plural.


          Pants in UK English refers to underpants! Trousers would be a better translation.


          Duolingo uses American English to teach German, so "pants" is the best translation of Hose.


          Would it not be ,You have a pair of pants


          I made a mistake typing "hat" instead of "habt" and Duo didn't tell me it was a mistake :(


          Hosen are trousers and pants are underwear.


          wait a minute. I have a question. before this I found pants is "eine hose"... and now its "hosen".... why it is not consistent.... please educate me....


          before this I found pants is "eine hose"... and now its "hosen"

          In English, "pants" is always plural, whether it refers to one pair of pants or to several pairs.

          In German, eine Hose (capital H! it's a noun) is one pair of pants; Hosen is the plural.

          So in "I am wearing pants", you would say Ich habe eine Hose an or Ich trage eine Hose, since you're just wearing one pair of pants.

          But in "I bought some pants", you would say Ich habe ein paar Hosen gekauft, since you bought several pairs.


          For the love of God please always accept trousers as a translation for hosen. Ffs. Doing my head in.


          For the love of God please always accept trousers as a translation for hosen.

          They do.

          Do you have a screenshot showing an answer being rejected for using "trousers" rather than "pants"?


          Why not " Ihr habst hosen"


          Why not " Ihr habst hosen"

          The verb ending for ihr is -t, not -st.


          I think using the translation of hosen as 'pants' is not right. Hosen are trousers. Pants is an Americanism. Pants mean underpants here, which are not trousers.


          Duolingo uses American English to teach German.

          As such, the default translation for Hose is "pants".


          You have trousers - an equally valid translation, yet not recognised by the Americo-centric software.


          You have trousers - an equally valid translation

          Indeed, which is why that is also accepted in a translation exercise.

          yet not recognised

          It isn't? Do you have a screenshot showing that translation being rejected?

          If so, please share it with us -- upload it to a website somewhere (e.g. imgur) and tell us the URL of the image.

          I'll give you 50 lingots if it turns out to be an error on Duolingo's side.


          Die Hosen = pants ❤❤❤ about shorts?


          Shorts, jeans, khakis, chinos, etc. are all kinds of pants. They're more specific.

          Hose is as general as "pants" is.


          Hosen means trousers in British English


          When is "Ihr" you and when is it "she".


          'Hosen' is plural, so why isn't 'You have pairs of trousers' accepted as an answer?


          Such bad grammar. It should be "Do you have pants?" Not you have pants.


          Excuse me?

          "Do you have pants?" is a question. Ihr habt Hosen. is a statement.

          Statements in English don't start with a verb. "You have pants." is the correct translation.

          "We have skirts. You have pants. They have tights."


          Y'all is wrong. It is American slang and not English. It is also not the group use of you on its own that Ihr is.


          I disagree. Y'all is literally short for 'you all.' If that doesn't imply "group use of you" then what does? And I would consider y'all more regional dialect...an acceptable contraction in the southern states that can written or verbalized formally. E.g. at the scene of a crime, a cop (slang) may ask a group of teens: "Did y'all see what happened?" In court, the judge may tell the jury: "You all have been chosen to hear this case."


          Im British pants are something you wrar under your trousers. Hosen are trousers!


          You haven’t read any of the previous comments, I presume... this has been asked and answered above about a dozen times already, or more. (Mizinamo has been heroically patient and explained it every single time).


          Duolingo uses American English to teach you German.

          So if you see "pants", you can safely assume that the American English meaning is the one that is intended.


          Nein... Ihr habt Hosen nicht!


          Ihr is plural you, so it is you guys, or yous guys if you're from NJ. But if you're saying that you have no pants it would be: Ich habe Hose, aber du hat keine Hose insert derpyface But if you wanted to say you guys don't have pants go ahead, Ihr habt keine Hosen. We have no pants would be Wir haben keine Hosen or Wir haben Hosen nicht or Hosen haben wir nicht,


          napsta-blook, your entry is showing 'insert derpyface'. I think this is a Google mishap. Update: No, it is slang and extremely offensive, unless you think 'retard/retarded' are words for everyday casual use regarding people. This is absolutely not okay in the UK.


          That would be "Ihr habt nicht Hosen."


          Actually I think it'd be "Ihr habt keine Hosen".


          Or "Hosen habt ihr nicht."


          Now you sound like Yoda.


          "Hosen ihr nicht habt" ;)


          Am I mistaken in thinking that, "Ihr habt nicht Hosen," means, "You don't have pants," and that, "Ihr habt keine Hosen," means, "You have no pants"?


          I don't think you can say "Ihr habt nicht Hosen" as nicht translates into not. You should use kein when talking about a noun, as it translates into no/none/not a/not one. Off the top of my head, you could say:

          • Ihr habt keine Hosen. - You have no pants.

          • Keine Hosen habt ihr. - No pants do you have.

          • Or as sparroe said above: Hosen habt ihr nicht. - You have pants not.


          But wouldn't nicht be acting on the verb in this instance, meaning you don't have vs. keine for acting on the noun?


          Could you not use "Du hast Hosen" instead? What's the difference between the two sentences? Formality?


          "Ihr habt" is second person plural (adressing two or more persons).

          "Du hast" is singular (adressing one person).

          English doesn't distinguish between these so both translate as "you".


          Ihr is talking to multiple people, sort of like you guys in English.


          Yeah, that's all. You could use either one in this instance.


          Actually that's not the case. Capitalized 'Sie' is the formal you, which can be singular or plural (lowercase 'sie' means either she or they, depending on the instance). 'Ihr' is the informal plural you, like saying y'all. 'Du' is the informal singular you.


          The English sentence "You have pants" can be addressed to anyone: to a child or a friend (informal singular), to a group of children or mates (informal plural), to one person formally, or to a few people formally. So in German you can use "Du hast Hosen", "Ihr habt Hosen" or "Sie haben Hosen", all of them are correct. If not accepted, report it.


          Ah mine didn't have me translate from English to German for this question. Makes it a little bit different, I guess. But you are correct.


          I am confused :when i use ihr and when i use du ????


          Du is singular ihr is plural, like y'all instead of just you.


          Pantaloons should be correct...though informal


          I heard " er hat wurst" wrote " er hat durst" , the right answer is "ihr habt hosen"? This man voice is getting me headaches :(


          "Ihr" means "they" in nominative case. "Haben" in du form is "hat", but "haben" in ihr form is "habt". The error here is that the translation should not be "You have trousers." but it should instead be "They have trousers."

          Feel free to correct me please, if I am wrong.


          That's nearly all wrong.

          ihr in the nominative case means "you (all)".

          "they" in the nominative case is sie.

          haben in the du form is hast.

          hat is the er, sie, es form of haben.

          haben in the ihr form is habt -- this is the only part that was correct.


          Is "Du hast Hosen" also correct ?


          Are "Hosen" actually underwear


          No, though 'Unterhose' would be. 'Die Hose' refers to trousers.


          Would "You all have pants" be a correct translation as well?


          Im confused Wen to use habe, haben, habt...etc


          It's verb conjugations. The verb relates to the subject. Ich habe. I have. Er hat. He has.


          Can't it be "du habt hosen"


          Irh hat hosen . i entered he has pants but the app said u? Which would be du


          What distinguishes "I" from "you" in this sentence.


          I just think it's strange that "pants", generally in the past only worn by men, would be a feminine word, while skirt, worn by women, would be a masculine word. GERMANS ARE WIERD. :-)


          Remember that gender in languages is a grammatical concept and social customs don't really affect that. When a German says der Rock, there is no sense of expressing masculinity in the skirt, they're simply treating the word as a noun that falls into the category of what we call the "masculine grammatical gender". This can be clearly seen with the word Mädchen which is neuter, despite referring to a female – this is because of the grammatical function of -chen to make a word neuter. There's even the word Weib (an old-fashioned and possibly pejoritative word for a woman) which is neuter for no apparent reason other than: grammar.

          If you think about it, the languages themselves came first. All of these genders, cases, word classes, clauses and rules were invented in order to make sense of them.


          Ihr no es usted,ni ustedes,es ellos o ellas,estudien mas el aleman.


          Gracias! Ihr = vosotros y Sie = usted y ustedes.

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