Translation:She lives in a house the roof of which is black.
Who would ever say " She lives in a house, the roof of which is black?" We would say " She lives in a house which has a black roof." That's as formal as it would get. More likely: "She lives in a house with a black roof". That is more ambiguous, but that's what people would say, and work out for themselves that it's the house that has the black roof and not the woman.
In german its the same situation. Specially in spoken language you rarely use any Genitive and you would avoid a grammatical construction like this by saying "Sie wohnt in einem Haus mit einem schwarzen Dach." This is the same as your "She lives in a house with a black roof." So I just guess this is a "random" sentence to learn the use of the Genitive relative clause. From a grammatical view youre using different kinds of attributes when you say "with a X" and "which has X".
I have tried two more natural sounding translations for this sentence, both of which demonstrate that I know what the German sentence means, but Duo rejects them. She lives in a house that has a black roof; She lives in a house with a black roof. I reported it, but I don't expect Duo will change it.
I reported my translation: "She's living in a house that has a black roof" too, and think it should be accepted.
I don't think it would be a good idea to accept these. Of course the intended meaning is the same, but they are nevertheless different sentences (all of them have natural sounding German equivalents!) than the one to be translated here.
It really needs to be changed.... The English translation sounds extremely unnatural.
yes, and all should be accepted. When teaching a new language, nitpicking is not a great idea.
No. If you really want to learn a language, you should understand the structure of sentences and not only develop a vague idea of what they are talking about. Sometimes there is no other possibility, because structures are different across languages or it is usually not phrased like this in another language.
But if similar structures exist (and this is the case here!) there is no need to digress from an exact translation. Thus:
"Sie wohnt in einem Haus, ..."
- "dessen Dach schwarz ist." - "whose roof is black" (yes, I'd prefer that one)
- "das ein schwarzes Dach hat" - "that/which has a black roof."
"Sie wohnt in einem Haus mit einem schwarzen Dach" - "She lives in a house with a black roof."
Three different sentences.
Hmm, as other have commented, this sentence is weird in English. I understand the construction of the German equivalent of course, but the problem is that the "the roof of which" sounds decidedly pedantic and "whose roof" sounds equally odd since the relative pronoun "whose" usually requires a human antecedent...instead, to illustrate the grammatical structure, the sentence could be something like "Sie ist verheiratet mit einem Mann, dessen Haus schwarz ist" (just a suggestion...)
Whose does not at all need to refer to a human. It isn't who's; it's the genitive of the relative pronoun.
Well, that is true- it does not NEED to (as I wrote in my previous comment: "'whose' USUALLY requires a human antecedent"). However, I try to be descriptivist, and I think most native English speakers would analyze a relative clause with "whose" in reference to a non-human antecedent as at least a bit odd. As we all know, languages are not like math (thank God!), so there is almost always room for variation, and what "sounds good" depends on the speaker and the context. Personally, I normally only use "whose" in reference to people and (domesticated) animals. So for me, sentences like "That is the girl whose hair smells nice" or "I have a dog whose paws are white" are fine, while "That is the car whose windows are tinted" or "I have a sofa whose fabric is soft" sound strange. In the latter case, I would use periphrasis (i.e. "That is the car that has tinted windows" or "I have a sofa with soft fabric"). One could say that is just my preference, so take it or leave it, but as I wrote above, context matters too, and I truly believe that if there are other "human-associated" words in the phrase, the usage of "whose" almost becomes comically incorrect- e.g. "There is the table whose legs are broken"; "Here is the clock whose face is painted."
Using whose for non-human stuff sounds totally fine to my ears. Maybe that is regional tho
I used : she lives in a house which has a black roof ...that means exactly the same thing
Even if that sentence means the same, you should match the structure of the German sentence and use a possessive form of some sort.
In the case of an inanimate object, either "in which the roof is black" or 'with a black roof" or " having a black roof' would apply nicely. The word "Whose" implies a living person or creature. I have reported it, but sadly DL does not bother to correct their mistakes.
We would not say it like that in Ireland.
"She lives in a house with a black roof." or "She lives in a house that has a black roof." or more unusual "She lives in a house where the roof is black"
Don't worry Duolingo has lots more of them.
Why is Sie in this instance "she " and not "you"
When "Sie" is used as "you (formal)" it takes the verb form of the 1st and 3rd person plural (usually identical to the verb infinitive), so in this case it would have to be "Sie wohnen" (if "sie" appears with "wohnt" it can only mean "she").
At the beginning of a sentence, you cannot tell the difference between "you live" (in the formal form) and "they live", yes -- both will be Sie wohnen.
(You can't tell whether the Sie is capitalised because it is the polite pronoun Sie, or whether it is the word "they", sie, which is capitalised only because it is the first word of the sentence.)
Thank you Mizinamo.
How would you hear and translate this sentence?
"Sie wohnen in einem Haus, dessen Dach schwarz ist. "
Without context, I would understand Sie wohnen in einem Haus, dessen Dach schwarz ist. primarily as "They live in a house whose roof is black."
Generally, though, personal pronouns such as sie or Sie refer back to someone previously mentioned in a conversation, so depending on whether we had just been talking about "you" or about "them", I would understand it differently.
In English we would never refer to a house using the word whose. We would say "They live in a house that has a black roof" or "They live in a house with a black roof". I used the first one and it was marked incorrect. I reported that it should be accepted.
There's a weird divide between sentences expecting idiomatic translation and those expecting strict translation. I feel like I've had to memorize which one they expect for quite a few, which doesn't really feel like it's necessary for language learning.
Or, “she lives in a house that has a black roof,” which I know is not a literal translation or as formal, but is what people would more likely say.
I don't feel I can add anything to the muddle that is this sentence. It is ridiculous to write a sentence in duolingo that you wouldn't ever say in your own language just to get the 'correct' answer marked as right. It's becoming all too frequent though which is a shame.
"She lives in a house that has a black roof" should definitely be accepted! BTW, it's completely fine to use "whose" when referring to inanimate objects - look it up!
I'm sorry, I love you Duo, but I don't like being forced to write sentences like that..
"She lives in a house which roof is black" was not accepted, what is wrong/
That's not really grammatical. You need some sort of possession in there: "She lives in a house whose roof is black" or perhaps "... a house the roof of which is black."
you need a pronoun in the genitive case here, which cannot be fulfilled by "which". So it needs to be either "whose" or "of which".
We wouldn't use which or whose in this sentence.
You would have to structure the sentence like this, but it would sound wrong for an English speaker, in the way that someone using die, der, das, des incorrectly would sound to a native German speaker.
"She lives in a house which has a roof that is black" or "She lives in a house which has a black roof "
Even if you put this down, the answer comes back as wrong. Yet again an instance where you should go back to rewriting the programme to ensure it is accurate.
Yes I agree that "of which the roof is black" is correct and should be accepted; however, it would be very strange for someone to say that - maybe it would be found in formal literature.
it suggested "She lives in a house whose roof is black" (the house is now a person?) Agree with other commenters on the difficulty of the expected translation
I object to 'whose' being used with an inanimate object when a few sentences ago I was not allowed to use it with animals!
i wrote "She lives in a house which the roof of is black" .... somehow its wrong. How?
The word order in English should be "the roof of which", although in a language exercise (where English is not the language being learned) I would be more lenient than DL...
No native speaker would ever say "She lives in a house, the roof of which is black." That is excruciatingly awkward English. We would simply say: She lives in a house that has a black roof." come on!
But this translation exactly matches the level of language in the German sentence.
That may be, but literal translations are often incorrect in terms of how people speak.
It's not about literal translations, but about hitting the meaning as well as the level. And "She lives in a house, the roof of which is black." may well be used in English, by the same type of person who would use "Sie wohnt in einem Haus, dessen Dach schwarz ist." in German (e.g. me).
Others might use "simpler" constructions, which exist in both languages.
People can speak in a variety of ways, depending on the situation in which they find themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)
The verb in the German sentence is wohnt (wohnen), which means to reside or live. If you want to say she has a house, that would be: Sie hat ein Haus.
No one would ever say "the roof of which". Why are you torturing is with nonsense?
Certainly not. Of course the meaning is nearly the same, but it is still a different sentence without the relaive clause.