Translation:He lives in a village the name of which I forgot.
The English translation to this is awkward... Can I say 'he lives in a village which I forgot the name' instead?
I would rather say "he lives in a village which name i forgot". Anyway, the problem I see is that the Duo answer forces usage of "whose" instead of "which". Isn't "whose" used for people (and people-like) only and "which" for anything else?
If it would be meant that I forgot the name of the man, the German sentence would be: Er, dessen Namen ich vergessen habe, wohnt in einem Dorf.
The same case is: Sie wohnt in einem Haus, dessen Dach schwarz ist. The Duo's answer is: She lives in a house whose roof is black.
again, roof is a thing, not a person.
Duo, please, correct that!
You are wrong. "whose" can be used for things as well as people. If you really want to avoid it, you have to use a construction with "of". Your sentence "he lives in a village which name I forgot" is not a correct English sentence. Instead you can say: "he lives in a village the name of which I forgot". Similarly "She lives in a house the roof of which is black".
Those are both gibberish. Dessen is straightforwardly "whose". If you which to use a different relative pronoun, you absolutely must insert "of" to express possession.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the English sentence. It is only a matter of register, not Grammar.
No , as others have said you need to indicate possession. I tried "He lives in a village that I have forgotten the name of" , which is acceptable English , but not to Duo. Reported
Just in case you tried "...Dorf, dessen Name_ ich vergessen habe" without the N : Please don't flag it, only "Namen" is correct and Duo is right to refuse it. Only the Nomimativ of "Name" comes without N at the end, see also http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Name_Ruf_Benennung_Bezeichnung ,
(( [edit2: irrelevant] but "dessen"
triggers [edit:] is Genitiv, according to http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/dessen ))
[edit 3] solved: quis_lib_duo has sorted it out perfectly: it must have an N because it's accusative in this example.
"Der Name" is one of those several nouns that add "-en" in the the accusative singular; so it would be "den Namen". Another example is "Der Prinz" which becomes "den Prinzen".
Cool! Does it mean "dessen" (which is Genitiv) automatically triggers Akkusativ afterwards? That's what I'm still struggling with, and I couldn't dig up any rules or standards for it. If one speaks his own first language long enough, grammar becomes secondary…
I mean, it would make perfect sense, wouldn't it? "Er wohnte in einer Festung, deren Prinzen ich einst gerettet habe" — He resided on a stronghold, the prince of which I rescued in days of yore
Accusative is triggered here because Namen is the direct object of the subclause. To make that more obvious, you can reformulate: Er wohnt in einem Dorf. Ich habe den Namen vergessen.
There are other sentences possible in which the (genitive form of the relative pronoun) dessen / deren is followed by another case although they sound quite rare and poetic as in everyday speech you wouldn't use such constructs very often:
(I'll use plural to make the cases more obvious.)
nominative: Das ist der Mann, dessen Schwestern mein Haus gekauft haben.
dative: Das ist die Mutter, deren Töchtern ich ein Geschenk machte.
Now you really got me thinking! Let's see if we can sort it out, because there are many approaches to answer your question. First of all, related to the exercise:
"Der Name" is the only flexion (Nominativ) of this term that comes without an "N". Due to the fact that you cannot build a meaningful version of the second part with a Nominativ, you'll find that you need to flex the term. In case of "der Name" this means there is at least an "N" added. >> [edit: Akkusativ in this case, like quis_lib_duo clarified.]
A viable use of Nominativ "Der Name" would cause two phrases: "Er wohnt in einem Dorf. Der Name (des Dorfes) ist mir unbekannt." >> [edit: Der Name is the subject of the second phrase, therefore nominative is used.]
If it comes to your question, there's actually no substantial difference and many native speakers could possibly struggle to give a precise answer. I mixed it up myself first of all. And there's a lot of smattering out there in the interwebs. Let me provide some examples:
Use "Der Name" (Nominativ) in most cases and whenever you can prefix other terms to specify the sort of the name, e.g.
"der Name lautet…" — the name is…,
"mein (Vor-)Name ist…" — my given name is…,
"ihr (Geburts-)Name war…" — her birth name was…
therefore as well in "der Dorfname" — the village name.
You probably won't hear "Der Dorfnamen" with N, but it's possible. You certainly will NOT call the famous movie "Der NameN der Rose".
So, "der Name" (see link above) is certainly more common, but "the name" translates to "der Namen" as well (for comparison: http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Namen — and the explanatory content is nearly identical there), where the latter seems to be a little old-fashioned. The Duden dictionary which I linked to says "der Namen" is rarely used.
The tricky thing is: Whenever you flex the common "Der Name", you'll get at least the N for free, which makes things complicated. Not enough, if you compare the flexion of both, you'll find they are exactly identical.
I'd suggest: Do use "Der Namen" as wisely as sparingly. In a historical context, you could think of use cases like:
"der Namen des alten Dorfes" — the name of the old village "Der Festungsnamen" — the stronghold's name
Phew, I nearly got stuck in my own mother tongue's grammar and terms. To all the fellow learners out there: I can really feel your pain! :)
Do you use "who or whose" for dead things like towns , or in another question, a roof, in English? The answer above seems more correct to me than "............village whose name I have......." that Duo suggested to me.
I wrote "He lives in a village whose name I have forgot." and Duo marked it incorrect. We've been using "whose" for dessen/deren/etc all along in this lesson so it seems odd that it suddenly doesn't accept it for this sentence.
I think the mistake in your sentence is in another place. "I have forgot" is wrong. It should be either "I forgot" or "I have forgotten".
Dorf is the word for town or village, if I use the word town here it wants me to use the word small
Isn't Stadt a city? I was told on another thread that "Dorf" is best translated as "village" because I, too, wanted to use town.
I am not sure, whether "dessen Namen" is the only correct form here. In my opinion, you can also use "dessen Name", at least it doesn't sound wrong for me.
Moreover, this publisher uses the following sentence "Joseph Pilates - Der Mann, dessen Name Programm wurde." on a book cover. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean, that "dessen Name" is grammatically correct...
In the title you give, Name is nominative (as it is the subject of the subclause), not accusative as in DL's example.
Duo did not accept "town" but wanted "village" or "small town" The German "dorf" translate in Afrikaans to "dorp". Dorp translates to town in South African English. A village in England is a very small town. If dorf is a village in German, do they have something bigger than a village but smaller than a city in Germany? If yes, what do they call it. Are there cities, towns and villages in the USA ? At what point is a place not a village anymore, but a town?
though usually a village (Dorf) is smaller than a town (Stadt), there is no automatic transition from one to the other by passing some fixed size limit. It is a legal matter: a settlement has to be awarded the "Stadtrechte" (town charter) and thus be made a town.
I tried "He lives in a village which I forgot the name of" but was rejected. I'd also say "of which I FORGET the name" but not "of which I FORGOT the name" , not sure why tbh.