I translated "Wie hatte sie es genannt?" as "What had she called it?" That was marked correct, but the suggested translation was "How had she called it?" Can it really have the same meaning as both English sentences, even though they have different meanings?
"To call it" has several meanings in English; "what" suggest some meanings for it (especially "to refer to it as" & "to name it"), but "how" suggests others (such as "to shout it" & "to predict it").
I'm a native US English speaker, and not a native German speaker, so I can only speak for the English. And in standard US English, "How had she called it?" is different in meaning from "What had she called it?"
"What had she called it?" = "What had she named it?" or "What name had she given it"?
"How had she called it?" in common usage, asks about the method, device, or whatever that she used to summon it. For example, she might have called the dog using an ultrasonic whistle.
There may be some dialects or regional variations in English, however, in which the two questions mean the same thing.
Aber, nein. I thought the same thing momentarily, but I realized if you were asking how she summoned something, you'd ask "Wie hatte sie es gerufen?" "Nennen" is "to call something by a name" (essentially the active version of heißen.). "Rufen" is to call out to something.
(Also "Anrufen" is to call someone by phone. I always tell Siri "Rufe Mutter an")
Knowing several northern/western Europeans who learned English as a second language, this IS a common mistake for them. They often say "How is that called?" when they mean "What is that called?".
I could make a short book about the common mistakes made by my ESL friends here... But that seems rude considering they have all learned "my" language while I struggle learning any of their languages!
I think of mir as" to me" and mich as "me". If you translate Er hatte mir den Name genannt. "He had to me told the name" , it sounds more natural than" he had to me called the name". If I wanted to say he called me the name , I would say " Er hatte mich den Name genannt. I hope that makes sense to you. Another example was "Er hatte" mich" oft seinem besten schuler genannt. He had often called "me "his best student.
Wondering about the difference between Heissen and Nennen. Got this info online: Heissen = To be named. Nennen = To be called. e.g. Ich heiße Monika, aber meine Freundinnen nennen mich Money (My name is Monika, but my friends call me Money). Native speakers can confirm if this is correct.
For one thing, the grammatical usage is different. "Heißen" is "be called/named" while "nennen" is "call/name" (not "be called"). So "Ich heiße Monika" but "Ich bin Monika genannt."
Another distinction is that "nennen" can specify who calls you by this name ("Meine Freundinnen nennen mich Money") while there's no way to express this with "heißen." So in general, "nennen" is used when you want to specify who calls you by a particular name, and "heißen" is used when it's irrelevant who calls you that or that's simply your name in general. Your sentence is a good example of this: "Ich heiße Monika (in general-- that's my name), aber meine Freundinnen (specifically) nennen mich Money."
Also, in addition to names, you can use "heißen" to show the meaning of something ("Was heißen die seltsame Runen?), which you can't do with "nennen."
No worries! "Werden" is quite tricky. "Werden" can be used for either the future tense or the passive, with slightly different constructions.
You use "werden" with an infinitive verb for the future tense:
- Ich werde sie Monika nennen-- I will call her Monika
- Das Kind wird das Spielzeug finden-- The child will find the toy
You use it with a past participle for the (present) passive (Since "werden" also means "become," this is effectively "become called"--> "be called"):
- Ich werde Monika genannt-- I am called Monika
- Das Kind wird von seinen Eltern gefunden-- The child is found by his parents
For a future passive sentence, you use "werden" twice:
- Ich werde Monika genannt werden-- I will be called Monika
- Das Kind wird von seinen Eltern gefunden werden-- The child will be found by his parents
Here's a more detailed reference
In this usage, I like to think of 'werden' as Dictionary.com's 22nd definition of 'get', such as "to get angry" or "to get sick" (which is really just another way to say 'become')
Or in terms of the previously mentioned sentence "I get called Monika"
That helps me to remember that the word is 'werden', whereas 'I am called Monika' would make me incorrectly think of 'sein'.
Which sentence do you think is unnatural or erroneous? What do you think is wrong with it and what should it be in your opinion?
“This solution is unnatural or has an error” reports are pretty much useless, because they are so vague: they provide zero information about the location of the supposed error.
The English sentence is unnatural, as has been discussed over and over in these comments. The most obvious natural-sounding alternative is "What had she called it?" which is accepted but is not the single "definitive" answer shown.
Edit: By the way, I would be happy to include an explanatory note with such a report, but there's no way to do that any more either.
Many other comments have already explained this, but I'll give it one more shot...
"How had she called it?" is not right in this context for the same reason you don't translate "Wie ist dein Name?" as "How is your name?". The word "how" simply isn't used that way with regard to names in English. Like much of English, there's no particular theoretical basis for why that should be, it just is.
As a native English speaker, that usage sounds immediately "foreign".
As for what it should be instead, "What had she called it?" or "What had she named it?" are the two alternatives that immediately spring to mind.
Finally, maybe a further example might help: The answer to the question "How had she called it?" could be "Badly." But it would not be expected to be a specific name.