1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: German
  4. >
  5. "You have pants."

"You have pants."

Translation:Ihr habt Hosen.

January 23, 2013



Either Hose or Hosen should be acceptable. The English is "You have one pair of pants" or "You have two pairs of pants". Either is "You have pants". Auf deutsch ist "Ihr habt eins Hose" oder "Ihr habt zwei Hosen". "Ihr habt Hose" oder "Ihr habt Hosen"

  • 2018

"Du hast eine Hose" is currently not accepted


It should be accepted now.


Ihr habt eins Hose and Ihr habt Hose are not correct.

Ihr habt eine Hose and Ihr habt (zwei) Hosen are fine.


My understanding of Hose/Hosen in German is this: Hose = pants (as in "a pair of pants"); Hosen = pants (as in "some pairs of pants")

Can anyone confirm this?


Christan confirms what I thought: ""eine Hose" = a pair of pants; "Hosen" = more than one pair of pants (in standard German, "Hosen" never refers to only one pair of pants)"

The German translation for "You have pants" should use Hose, not Hosen.


Both are accepted.

If someone has five pairs of pants, then both "You have pants" and Du hast Hosen would fit the situation.


I found the following web-links to the history of the usage "pants" "Hosen" "Hose" "a pair of pants", ... etc - and so on

[[ Eine Hose ist ursprünglich ein Schlauch; engl. "hose" zeigt das noch sehr schön, wo "pants" ebenfalls grammatisch ein Plural für die beiden (Herren-)Beinkleider ist (nicht nur für eins von den beiden!), genau wie deutsch "Hosen". ]]

[[ Before the days of modern tailoring, such garments, whether underwear or outerwear, were indeed made in two parts, one for each leg. The pieces were put on each leg separately and then wrapped and tied or belted at the waist (just like cowboys’ chaps). The plural usage persisted out of habit even after the garments had become physically one piece. However, a shirt was a single piece of cloth, so it was always singular. ]]

even nowadays "Hosen" in standard German ( as Christian mentions) never refers to only one pair of pants ( this is completely right ) ... the statements of these web-links implies ... that the former usage of "Hosen" equals "pants".

from this point of view ... [["You have pants" "Du hast Hosen"]] ... is right.

I am not fluent in nowadays spoken English - but I am a German native speaker

your statement ( SchnapsHexe ) leads to the question - what is the better translation nowadays

  • [[ "You have pants" "Du hast Hosen" ]]


  • [[ "You have pants" "Du hast eine Hose" ]]

so here my question:

Is [[ "You have pants" ]] nowadays the short form of [[ "You have a pair of pants" ]] ?

or what is the full translation you have in mind?


dieta asks: Is [[ "You have pants" ]] nowadays the short form of [[ "You have a pair of pants" ]] ? or what is the full translation you have in mind?

For the first part, if you're asking about English, the answer is yes. There is no singular "pant" in English anymore (the half-pair of pants would be referred to as "a pant" only to be funny). English "pants" refers to one or many pairs of pants, and whether the "pairs of" is included or not, there is no distinction. (See phrases like "Are you wearing pants?" One doesn't ask, "Are you wearing a pair of pants," although it's technically correct. Also note that this is all in reference to American English, where pants are jeans, trousers, slacks or any other form of leg outerwear. You can see that this plural form extends to the other terms I jsut mentioned: jeans (refers to a pair of jeans), trousers (again, a single pair of trousers), slacks (likewise). Overalls (full body pants that have a torso bib included) are also always plural (the singular is "a pair of overalls", although the "a pair of" can be implied. "Underwear" is odd, in that it takes "a pair of", but never has a pluralizing "s" at the end. Perhaps that's because it's a noun formed from a verb.)

For the second part, I learned that German differed from English here, so I was expecting "You have pants" to mean "You have a pair of pants", and therefore I had "Du has eine Hose" in mind, though truthfully, I had neglected the "eine", which I can see would be necessary for German rules.

Thanks for your contributions! I apologize for any incorrect assumptions I may have made about your questions.


Du. Du hast. Du hast Hosen. Du hast Hosen Getragen. Du hast Hosen Getragen. Und Ich hab keine Hosen.


What's the difference between "Du hast Hosen" and "Ihr habt Hosen"?


One of those sentences is speaking to du, i.e. to one person whom you know well.

The other is speaking to ihr, i.e. to several people whom you know well.


I wrote "Du habst hosen" and only got penalized for missing capitalization. Does habst work?


No, but sometimes their error checking system stops after finding one error. I don't recall if it's ever corrected two errors at once for me. If so, then you lucked out that it caught the "H" in "Hosen" (a forgivable offense) and missed "habst" (should be "hast").

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