1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Nee, ze hebben geen menu."

"Nee, ze hebben geen menu."

Translation:No, they do not have a menu.

August 24, 2017



what do you hae against:"no, they haven't got menu". I cant see why should I strictly put an "a"


Because in English you need to have a definite or indefinite article in front of all singular countable nouns (ie everything except materials and such).

You can say "I want water" but you cannot say "I want newspaper" (You can say "I want newspapers" of course)


When is it ze and when is it zij?


It means the same. Just always use "ze". "Zij" is only used when referencing or pointing at someone/something specific:

"Hebben zij rijst?" "Nee, ze hebben een appel"

Or: "Dit is [girl], ze is een vrouw"

TL;DR just use "ze"


I am confused, I thought "No, they do not have the menu" is correct. Why is it wrong?


Means a bit different thing in English: your version is asking about one very specific menu-card, for example if you wrote down a phone number on it, and you go back the next day, and ask if they still have that concrete menu card. The dutch sentence is about not having any menu cards in the entire restaurant at all :)

Hope that helps!


"Geen" is not used as a definite article. "No, they do not have the menu." would be "Nee, ze hebben het menu niet." In that case you're taking about a specific menu; there definitely is a menu. "Het menu" (the menu).

"No, they don't have a menu.", on the other hand, would be "Nee, ze hebben geen menu." Here, we're not after a specific menu. Any menu will do. Their restaurant may in fact not use menus at all. "Een menu" (a menu).


Geen is the negative of een (like none is of one). It is an indefinite article. The is a definite article, so like balogGerge said, your sentence translates to nee ze hebben het menu niet.

I would like to add though that the sentence in the lesson doesn't mean they don't have menu-cards but that they don't have a menu, so no specific dishes you can choose from. Ze hebben geen menukaarten is they don't have any menu's (cards with the menu on it).

In dutch we distinguish between the dishes a restaurant offers and the thing it is written/typed on. Het menu en de menukaart. Both would translate to the menu in english.

*Extra explanation, menukaart takes de as definite article because it is de kaart. Compound words always take the definite article of the last word. Het zonlicht, de zon, het licht (sunlight).


As far as I understood from the previous lesson 'ze' can mean both 'she' and 'they'. However, when I typed 'she' in this example, it was wrong. Why?


the conjugated verb is "hebben" (plural), which indicates that there must be more than one person


How come ze is both she and they??


It depends on the context. If its 'Ze hebben' it means 'they' since its plural. Hope this helps!


Earlier on, there wasn't a complete set of pronouns in Dutch. For the third person, there was a male person singular, "hij" (he), and anything else, "zij". Some languages distinguish between male singular, female singular, male plural and female plural. Dutch, for the third person singular or plural, uses "zij" as that "anything but male third person singular".

Some dialects different from the standard, use "hullie" and "zullie" for the plurals, similar to "jullie" for second person plural. Usually, Dutch just manages without, as the conjugations differ: The conjugation for the third person singular ends in "-t", whereas that for the third person plural ends in "-en".


It depends upon the sentence. If it's Singular then we write for eg. Ze eet, Ze hebt, Ze leest etc., if its PLURAL then we write Ze hebben (verb). Zij hebben Wij hebben Jullie hebben


when "ze" and when "Zij"?

my answer - nee, zij hebben geen menu right answer - Nee, ze hebben geen menu.


The answer you gave is grammatically correct, but start trying to lean toward ze unless you have to emphasize or introduce zij.

Hebben zij een menu?
Do they have a menu?

Nee, ze hebben geen menu.
No, they don't have a menu.


Both are correct however if it is a listening exercise you should use the word that is given to you and not replace it.


If you got this as a Type as you hear exercise, than you're required to type exactly the form that you heared.

If you were allowed to form the sentense yourself, next time you get that question, report that your answer should be accepted. The word is "zij"; it's just that there's an eroded form "ze" that can often be used instead. Similar to the difference between the forms "you" and "ya" in English, you cannot use "ze" in comparisons or when stress is placed upon it. (At this point in the course, stress hasn't been covered yet.)

Start by using "zij" wherever you can, as it's always correct. Once you get a feeling for where you could spare a little breath you can start using "ze" where that word is unimportant.


Does "Nee, ze hebben het menu niet" mean "No, they don't have THE menu" as opposed to "No, they don't have A menu"? I'm just trying to make sure I've got my geen/niet difference down pat. Bedankt!


I dont understand why there isnt a an een infront of menu because there is an a in the english translation, could someone please explain?


The een is replaced by geen. Think of geen as "not ... a" or "not ... any". It's the opposite of een.

Ja, ze hebben een menu.
Yes, they have a menu.

Nee, ze hebben geen menu.
No, they do not have a menu.

Nee, ze hebben geen menu's.
No, they do not have any menus.

If you were to take German, you'd find that Dutch is not alone in this since ein turns into kein.

Ja, sie haben ein Menü.
Nein, sie haben kein Menü.
Nein, sie haben keine Menüs.


Very well.explained, thank you.


im seeing im not the only one that didn't put the 'a' in the english translation. doesnt make sense, in a earlier question i carefully didnt put "the juice" cause it only said sap not de/het sap

i dont get it


geen in Dutch incorporates "a" into it.

Whenever you see geen in Dutch, think "not a" or, "not an". I. e. I do not have a book. Ik heb geen boek. They do not eat any oranges. Ze eten geen sinasappels. She does not eat any oranges. Ze eet geen sinasappels. Does this help?


Is the "niet/geet" distinction as the "nicht/kein" one in German?


Yes :) (it's spelled "geen")


Any tips on how to pronounce this?


Hey! There is no "got" to choose


I wrote: no they do not have menu. Why is this incorrect?


Incorrect English.


Shouldnt this be more strickly speaking, No, they have no menu


I thought it was she


Good question.

ze heeft - she eats
ze hebben - they eat

The verb form tells the difference, since heeft is singular and hebben is plural.



"no, they haven't any menu" is not accepted and i don't understand why :(


Well, this course focuses on Dutch. Also, adding alternative answers is done manually. Finally, some of the contributors likely were chosen for their knowledge of Dutch, rather than English.

So, if "haven't any menu" doesn't work, try whether "haven't any menus" does, etc. If you can't figure out the meaning at all, ask your fellow pupils here. If you can figure it out, but find that your answer is essential for learning Dutch, than you can report that your answer should be accepted too, next time you encounter it. If the contributors have time to spare and agree with you, they may add it as an alternative answer.


However, if I translate this to "No, they don't have menus", it's wrong.


They don't have a menu. → Ze hebben geen menu.

They don't have menus. → Ze hebben geen menu's.


I did the same, but looking back I think it's because menus is singular?


Because "menu" is singular, yes. There's no word "menus" in Dutch as that spelling would indicate a short/closed "u". Instead, the plural is "menu's", as there the "u" is at the end of the (normal) syllable, thus it stays an open/long "u".


It's a bit inconsistent. I think that's why it's confusing. "Nee, ze hebben geen menu." = "No, they do not have a menu." The one before this corrected my use of geen and returned this for the correct answer - "het meisje hebt een menu niet." Anyone know why?


You use "niet" when the world "the" ("het" or "de") is present. When you are refering to "a" something (as opposed to "the something") you use "geen".

Someone explained on one of these threads that "een" is "a" and "geen" is "not a"...

So you could say: " i have an apple" (een appel) and i have not an apple" (geen appel)

But if you were to say "i have THE apple" (de appel) Then you would have to say "de appel niet" because there is no "a" to have or not have (een vs geen)


I don't know whether that's actually what was given as a correct answer, but "hebben" is conjugated differently: "Het meisje heeft ...". And the structure you're using with the "niet" at the end, suggest it's about a single menu, that she doesn't have: "She doesn't have the menu." Thus, it would take "het", rather than "een".

When you see it again, check carefully what it's about, and if necessary report that something is wrong about that sentence.


In "Hebben" are the "bb" pronounced as a "v" or a "b"?


As "bb". I doubt that the combination "vv" would even be possible in Dutch.


Why not 'They have not a menu'?


I think that's because that phrase is not quite proper English.


The construct "They have not a - something or other", has an ancient feel to it. Either this was possible in earlier forms of English but not in the current, or it may indicate a translation, of e.g. the classics, staying closer to the source than is common in today's speech.

It's a fine translation, close to the original, but it gives an impression that you'll usually want to avoid. Should you be emulating the speech of your forebearers, this wording may be forgiven, but if not so, you would be wise to stick with "They don't have a - something or other".


It's fine in British English. I was taught the form »have you any time?« and „he hasn't any money“ when I learnt English.


I think that would be "Ze hebben menu niet" is why


Nope. If you are using "niet" then the word "the" ("de" or "het") has to be present.

If youre saying they dont have A menu, then it would be "ze hebben geen menu"

(Geen is the opposite of een. Een = a _, geen= not a __.

As soon as "THE" is present, you use "niet."

If you used "geen" in such a case, it would be like saying "they dont have A THE menu"


Can I say "hebben geen een menu" ?


No. Geen means "not a" so "geen een" means "not a a"


It's obviously that "geen een menu" is a negation of "een menu". However, while it's used in other dialects, it's not part of the standard language. In standard Dutch it's not acceptable to use "geen" as a separate negation. Rather, you have to replace the normal indefinite article, "een", with the negation.


There is a problem. İt should be ''They do not have menu''


"Menu" is a countable noun, so it needs an article before it. It's the same in Dutch.

Nee, ze hebben GEEN menu.
No, they do not have A menu.

It's just that in Dutch, the negation (not) is encoded into the article, while in English it's a separate word.


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