"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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 ;)
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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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."
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,
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.
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.
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.