"I am wearing pants."
Translation:Ich trage eine Hose.
There is a difference between trousers/pants and shoes though. We can talk of one shoe, but not about one trouser/pant.
Also "Ich trage Hosen" is fine, see https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Hose#Bedeutung1a
häufig auch im Plural mit singularischer Bedeutung
sie trägt Hosen
Just bear in mind that the singular use is more common today.
Your sentence would make sense if you were wearing several pairs of pants at once. It's not clearly specified, but since it's more common to wear only one, you can assume that's what they mean, and in German "pants" are a single thing that has a different plural form.
According to the 'tips and notes', eine Hose is one pair, Hosen refers to multiple pairs. So why, when I put 'Ich trage Hose', did it say I should have used the plural, Hosen, rather than correcting it to 'eine Hose'? I can't be wearing multiple pairs. (If the English was 'I wear pants', rather than 'I am wearing', Hosen would be correct.)
no. I try to translate the duden.de part for you. The Duden says (you can find it in the "Hose" article): "Hose....Grammatik... häufig auch im Plural mit singularischer Bedeutung" often used in the plural form with singular meaning. Ich mach mir gleich in die Hosen. Vor Angst? Vor Lachen!
"Ich trage Hosen" What is wrong?
Duo sagt: You used the plural "Hosen" here, instead of the singular "Hose". But "pantS" IS PLURAL.
In English, "pants" is always plural. "I bought some pants yesterday" could mean that your purchases had a total of one zipper or a total of ten zippers. "One pair of pants" or "Ten pairs of pants": they're plural "pants" in all cases.
In this way, "pants" are like "scissors" or "glasses/spectacles", which are also always plural.
In German, that is not the case. You can buy eine Hose, eine Schere, eine Brille.
So given that, look at this sentence. It says "I am wearing pants".
The use of the present continuous "I am wearing "shows that it refers to something that is happening right now. The person has those pants on his (or her) legs right at this moment.
But people generally just wear one pair of pants at a time.
Thus the only accepted translation is Ich trage eine Hose.
Ich trage Hosen. in German would either refer to wearing multiple pairs of pants at once (which is unusual), or to wearing pants regularly (which does not match the use of present continuous in English -- it would require "I wear pants" in English in the present simple case).
And for the English future "going to" in short form?
I am going to wear pants all weekend ->I am wearing pants all weekend
In this case "I am wearing pants" could refer to multiple pairs of pants. The English sentence is not exclusive to present continuous, so the "incorrect" answer with "Hosen" should be reconsidered in this light.
Thank you for bringing that up, because I was wondering exactly this. I know it's beyond the scope of this lesson, but:
"What are you wearing to the game (2 days from now)?" "I'm wearing pants."
Do you know, in German, would that always have to be rendered only in the future tense or is there a sort of equivalent colloquial use of the present tense for this sort of thing?
Figured I would ask now while I am thinking of it.
Danke for any tips on this.
Like already stated below, also "Ich trage (gerade) Hosen" can be used to say "I'm wearing pants". It also means one pair of trousers/pants, it doesn't always refer to a habit or multiple pairs at the same time. See https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Hose#Bedeutung1a
"Normalerweise trage ich einen Rock, aber heute habe ich Hosen an" is a totally correct German sentence. The plural usage is less common than the singular today, but still existent in idioms like "Er hat die Hosen voll".
Stop thinking in English, which is the exception here, as (unlike German) you cannot say 'I wear a pant'. In German, the way I now clearly understand it, 'Hose' (unlike the direct English translation 'pantS') is a totally, utterly singular word. So, you have to say 'Ich trage EINE Hose', just as in English you would have to say 'I wear A shirt'. Don't compare the grammatical use of 'Hose' with the grammatical use of 'pants'. Its use is more like that of 'shirt' or 'coat' or any other normally singular word than that of 'pants', which is a plural word even though it refers to one thing.
i was in england once and said pants instead of trousers, disgraceful, being in america and saying trousers just sounds a bit pompous, not perveish. I would rather learn it through trousers, for the sake of clarity. same reason that i use crisp and fries instead of ever using the word chips, clarity is key
I've been living in the US for a long time now, but I've learnt my English in the UK, and I still slip now an then. Quite recently I asked a waitress to change mashed potatoes in my order for chips and... she brought my steak with a bag of crisps/chips. And that's considering that every American has definitely heard of fish-n-chips.
That's because, in the U.S., "chips" almost always refers to potato chips, corn chips, etc. Only in the context of "fish" would potato chunks ever be considered as "chips", and that usually had to be learned later in life as a secondary fact, almost like a foreign language term.
There would be no confusion if the english sentence read: "I am wearing a pair of pants". Yes, I am aware that this is not how English speakers typically speak. However, the purpose of this course is to learn German, and an easier way to wrap your head around a language is by thinking in said language, or as close to how one thinks in said language.
mage is not a word in German. Perhaps you were looking for ich mag, but that means "I like", not "I am wearing".
anhaben ("to have on") is one way to say "wear", so ich habe eine Hose an is one way to say that you are wearing (a pair of) pants.
Hose has to be capitalised, though, because it is a noun.
Also, the most natural interpretation of "I am wearing pants" is that you are wearing exactly one pair of pants, not many pairs of pants (behind each other? over one another?), so you would use the singular eine Hose in German.
It used to be marked wrong, they changed it a year or so ago. I think they just decided it was petty when trying to learn the basics of a language to also be fussing about capitalisation. It would be helpful if they drew attention to it though, even if they didn't mark it as wrong.
I would not even call it a shorthand: it's a legitimate use of Present Continuous to declare one's plans: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/flatmates/episode73/languagepoint.shtml, and I think it it least partly invalidates mizinamo's argument for not accepting plural "hosen". (I am going trekking in the Sierra Nevada, and even though it might be hot, I am wearing long pants; there are mosquitos out there.)
Because English "I am wearing pants" may signal my intention to wear multiple pairs of trousers (not at the same time, naturally!), as in the example I have given. Meantime only singular "eine Hose" is accepted by Duo.
Mizinamo's point is absolutely valid if the sentence is about what I am wearing at the moment but it loses its validity if your interpret the English sentence as a statement of intentions.
Because that would mean "I am wearing the pants" (i.e. referring to specific, multiple pairs of pants).
Which is not what the English sentence says; and also, people usually don't wear multiple pairs of pants at once.
And finally, Hosen is a noun and has to be capitalised.
What you say is of course true, in most contexts. Of course we are not given the context here, but it is possible to think of a context where the plural would be correct. For instance:
Person A: What do you wear on your lower body in the winter? Person B: I wear trousers/pants.
Person B doesn't mean that he wears the same pair of trousers all the way through winter.
Notice that the exercise uses Present Continuous (I am wearing), rather than Present Simple -- the tense you have appropriately used in your example. So that rules your example out. Now, it is still possible to come up with a context where multiple pairs of trousers would be implied (see my earlier comment), but it's not as straightforward.
What is plural? The English? The German? The English is plural. Trousers (pants for Americans), like scissors, are plural in English, but the equivalent word in German is singular, unless you mean more than one pair of trousers.
Excuse me, but bread can be both countable and uncountable in its singular form. Depending on the context, you can say either 'I like bread' or 'I like the bread'. But you could not say 'I like shirt' though you can say 'I like the shirt'.
The trick is to remember that singular word 'Hose' works like singular word 'shirt', not like plural word 'pants', which is a special case in English.
I'm sorry but I just had to chip in. I suppose you could wear Monocles or a pair of Monocles!! LOL. Duolingo is correct. Ich trage eine Hose is translated to "I am wearing pants". Ich trage ein Paar Hosen is "I wear a pair of pants" (meaning plural quantity). In English you would not say 'I'm wearing pant" as it sounds wrong. In Englsih pants can mean singular or plural and you would know from the context of a conversation which it is - ie a pair of pants or two pairs of pants. In German, Hose is singuar and Hosen is plural. That is why using the indefinite article eine before the noun (pants) assists to distinguish between singular or plural. Hope this helps.
This should not be marked as a wrong answer. there is no obvious difference in plural and singular forms in English translation. In fact, in English the 'pants' or 'trousers' are the so called Pluralia Tantum and as such cannot be preceded by an indefinite article, so there is no way of telling whether the target language (German) requires indefinite or definite article.
This should not be marked as a wrong answer.
Nobody can see your answer, so talking about "this" or "my answer" is not useful.
there is no obvious difference in plural and singular forms in English translation.
However, "I am wearing" refers to a current situation. Most people only wear one pair of pants (eine Hose) at once, so a singular translation is most appropriate.
there is no way of telling whether the target language (German) requires indefinite or definite article.
What English uses is more or less irrelevant to what German needs.
You learn here that Hose is countable in German, so it needs an article in the singular, but not in the plural.
The fact that English does not use a definite article is a hint that German probably doesn't use a definite article here, either. The lack of article before the plural "pants" is a hint that the German translation will be indefinite singular eine Hose (with article) or indefinite plural Hosen (without article). Similar to English, indefinite plural nouns do not require an article but indefinite countable singular nouns do.
Why do you keep dismissing the possibility that someone is wearing more than one pair of pants? This is not a physical impossibility, and it is something that many of us do at times during the winter months.
In other questions, we are told that answers are right or wrong in terms of the grammar, not the sense or assumed context. So, for instance, we have questions that state that Duo the Owl has golden teeth. Owls don't have teeth, so this is a physical impossibility. Yet we translate per the grammar despite the sense.
Going from English ("I am wearing pants") to German, it is not possible to tell if the speaker is wearing a single pair of pants or multiple pairs of pants. So the English sentence should be "I'm wearing a pair of pants" to clarify that we're talking about a single pair, or the German should accept "Ich trage Hosen" to include the possibility that the wearer is doubling-up on clothes.