Translation:Those shoes are orange.
Thank you so much. You just saved me a good ten minutes of frustration trying to figure out the function of 'iro'.
I thought the same thing at first, but when you think about it they are slightly different. In one sentence you are pointing out the shoes. In the other we are pointing out the specific colour of the shoes.
It's not the same. Ano is modifying kutsu, this means it goes with shoes, it clarifies which shoes the speaker is talking about. Which shoes? Those shoes. If you wanted to say Those are orange shoes then you would say - are wa orenji na kutsu desu - those (things) are orange shoes. In the latter example you can see that orenji, the colour, modifies/describes the noun - not ano.
No. あのくつはオレンジろです (those shoes are orange). あれはオレンジくつです (those are orange shoes). There are different ways of saying similar things, but they are not the same thing.
It doesn't need the iro. I don't know why it has iro attached to the end? I think maybe they are worried that people aren't clever enough to figure out when they're talking about colour and when they're talking about fruit? It's silly! Of course people can figure it out!
Both variants (with or without いろ) seem to mean the same thing, though generally the variants without いろ seem more common.
orange has いろ after it because いろ means "color", meaning it's "orange color". I imagine this is done because オレンジ can also refer to the fruit. If you were to say this sentence however, the いろ is not really required.
Then you'd probably add some particles like の and よ at the end ; ). But seriously, my native language is Portuguese, and you can say both "color of orange" and "orange". Pink is also "color of rose" or "rose".
オレンジ can refer to the color of the fruit. but when refering to the color both オレンジ and オレンジ色 is fine. just いろ clarifies its the color.
I've never used orenjiiro or heard it in use. I think it's just duolingo being paranoid that people can't figure out the difference.
They're being the most gramatically conservative, is all. Inthe University I attended, they specified 色 for those colors which might've needed clarification
I looked this up in my jisho and it had it listed as "a bitter orange" and the colour orange with iro on the end. I have never heard of it or heard it used though. The anglicised orenji must have superseded it. orenji was in common use already by the late 80s but I couldn't tell you how long it has been in use.
I was looking for this comment. I think オレンジ色 is more used, but I have learned 橙色 too. I heard that 橙 refers to a variety of oranges
Does 'kutsu' mean plural shoes, or singular? Is there an indication that it is plural in this sentence? Thank you.
I have never before seen the color orange as " オレンジいろ". I have always seen it as just " オレンジ". Can anyone explain the difference between using オレンジいろ versus オレンジ ?
I'm confused by the use of the symbol 'ro' in this instance. Orange is 'オレンジ' (oranji) and ro is not a particle. Can anyone help me out?
They have tacked いろ (色) - meaning colour - onto the end of オレンジ (orenji) probably to emphasise that they are talking about the colour orange. This isn't common at all though. In all my years of study and when I lived in Japan I've never heard オレンジいろ used - just オレンジ.
I said "Those shoes are orange colored" but duolingo said that is wrong. Is it really though? I guess in English you don't usually bother to add "colored" but I can't see why it would be actually wrong to do so. Is it to emphasis that I can't drop the "iro" off in the Japanese like you can in English or something?
Technically, it is not incorrect, however you do not need to specify "coloured" in English - people will understand that you mean that the shoes are orange in colour and not made of oranges :) Also you do not need 'iro' in Japanese to indicate that the shoes are of orange colour - just as people understand in English that you are talking about the colour of the shoes and not about oranges (the fruit), people will also understand that you are talking about colour and not the fruit if you simply say あの くつは オレンジ です
Saying that something "looks" orange and that something IS orange is not the same thing. The former casts doubt on whether the object being described is orange whilst the latter states it as a fact. The Japanese is saying that the shoes ARE (fact) orange - no doubt about it.
what maies a subject plural in this sentence? Is it implied that shoes come in atleast a pair? what prevents "that shoe is orange" from being correct as well?
Shouldn't "that shoe is orange" work too since we could be taking about singular shoe and not a pair?
The audio pronunciation of あのくつ here is basically "anoktsu", while shoes alone is "kutsu". Is it normal to omit vowels in a noun like this?
In Japanese, closed vowels ('u' and 'i') tend to be hushed or wispered if they come in between two voiceless consonants or at the end of a word/sentence after a voiceless consonant. That's why certain names in anime seem to make those vowels silent. You know Sasuke from Naruto? Everyone pronounces his name like "sahs-kay", on account of the 'u' coming in between an 's' and 'k'. If either of those voiceless consonants were replaced with their voiced counterparts, (i.e. giving "sazukei" or "sasugei") that 'u' would be every bit as loud as the other vowels.
EDIT: This rule applies to all words and phrases by the way, not just nouns.