"I am wearing pants."
Translation:Ich trage eine Hose.
89 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Ich trage Hose....I am wearing pants. Yet it marks it wrong and says "Ich trage eine Hose." What causes the need for the article "eine" in this sentence? Thanks!
In German, "pants" (as in "one pair of trousers/pants") is generally singular, so you have to say "I wear a (pair of) pants" -> Ich trage eine Hose. Without the "eine", It would be similar to saying something like "I wear shirt" in English.
Okay so Hose really translates more to "pair of pants" than just "pants". Danke.
Its the english that makes less sense. Im wearing a pair of shorts and a pair of shoes but i only see three items of clothing
But there are two "pant legs" in English. When we say a pair of pants we refer to them together. Same for the pair of shoes. It is harder to image the two pant legs because they are joined at the waist.
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.
163
I wrote, "Ich trage Hosen." and Duo marked it wrong. Keeps saying the correction is, "Ich trage eine Hose."
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.)
I agree; the plural doesn't make sense as a translation of the present continuous sentence, and I've removed those alternatives.
"I am wearing pants" kann man wie DUO übersetzen mit: "Ich trage eine Hose", (Jetzt, Im Moment. weil "wearing") Man kann aber auch übersetzen: "Ich trage (im Moment) Hosen". Wie man bei einem kleinen Ausflug zu duden.de sehen kann, oder wenn man den Leuten zuhört, wie sie reden.
Do you mean that someone is wearing multiple pairs of pants at once? One above the other?
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!
Quantity isn't specified in the original. In some colder regions people do occasionally wear them in layers. This should be accounted for in what translations are accepted.
"Ich trage Hosen" What is wrong?
https://translate.google.com/#en/de/I%20am%20wearing%20pants
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).
- 1853
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".
Why isn't "Ich trage Hose" without the indefinite article also okay, or even better?
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.
Just a small point, but here in England, where the language had its origin, pants are undergarments!
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.
- 2560
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.
- 1066
I want to start a campaign to change the American usage of "french fries" to "potato chunks". I really really love the odd way those two words sound together.
In Iowa, people refer to very heavy people who eat way too many potatoes as "Potato Chunks"--- Not really-- ;-)
Here in the USA I call my pants "britches". But I think I'm a dying breed in that word choice. I don't ever hear anyone else say britches any more. At least not in the part of the country where I am at.
Interestingly, that usage seems to be confined to England, such that the Irish, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and Indians use the word to mean the same thing as Americans. The outergarment sense is also used in northern England.
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.
If I'm wearing more than one pair of pants (which happens when it's really cold outside), then "Ich trage Hosen."
That is correct, so it needs to be added.
I wrote " ich mage eine hosen " and they corrected it that way "Ich habe eine hose an ", could anyone explain , please ?
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.
Mizinamo, why don't Duo care about noun capitalisation? I have tested: deliberately replying in German with non-capitalisation is never marked wrong.
I don't know; perhaps it's because in most languages, capitalisation is not very significant in terms of changing the meaning. German is a bit of an odd one out here.
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.
Would you say that tragen can be used both for routine ("I wear x every day") and at the moment, and anhaben only for something I'm wearing right now?
"am wearing" refers to something you are doing right now.
Usually, people only wear one pair of trousers at a time, so Ich trage eine Hose. is the most appropriate translation.
- 1853
"am wearing" usually refers to something you are doing right now, but is also the shortened form of "am going to wear".
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.
@zirkul
Usually the English peresent continuous with the intentional meaning will refer to a single pair of pants, not multiple ones. I think your example is a minority occurrence.
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.
I do t understand. Isn't "pants" plural? Why it has to be "eine hose" if it's singular?
Pants is plural in English. As are glasses. Both of these words are singular in German. Think of it as “a pair of pants/glasses.”
I wish Duolingo would start offering the literal translation of the sentence.
For me, it would be easier to learn the discrepancies by having German grammar in the English prompt. I.E. it would say "I am wearing pants. (Hint: I am wearing a pants pair)."
I don't understand why I cannot use the plural here. What is the difference between "Hosen" and "eine Hose"?
eine Hose is one pair of pants.
Hosen is multiple pairs of pants.
Most people only wear one pair of pants at a time.
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.
Nope. This discussion is about translating "I am wearing pants." to German. Read it from the beginning. The whole issue of "Hose" vs "Hosen" would be meaningless/moot if we were to translate it from German: there would be no choice to make in either language.
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.
Please see the comment threads started by FreekVerkeerk and GhostAlexMercer.
Also, Hosen has to be capitalised -- it's a noun.
Oh, excuse me, so suddenly I'm expected to know that I'm supposed to add the article, but when given a sentence like "I like bread", it would've been incorrect to use one, even though bread does have an article in German, so it could as well be used.
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.
- 2560
I keep seeing the possibility that someone is wearing more than one pair of pants dismissed. I know people who wear more than one pair of pants when it's cold. Without context, what is wrong with "Ich trage Hosen" ?
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.
- 2560
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.
In the summer i am wearing more than one pair of pants because i sometimes have to wash them as well.
Can't we just say "Ich trage Hose"?
No.
Just like you can't say "I'm weating hat" in English or "I'm wearing shirt".