"Hij zwemt zonder zwembroek, wanneer niemand het kan zien."
Translation:He swims without swimming trunks, when nobody can see it.
"he swims without swimming suit when nobody can see" was not accepted and the correct answer is shown as "He swims without -a- swimming suit , when nobody can see ." The answer you have here does not have "a" before "swimming trunk" what is going on???
in English swimming trunks do not need the indefinite article 'a'. Like trousers or shorts; 'He wears trousers' 'he wears shorts' which is different from. 'he wears a shirt', or a swimming costume. Trousers, shorts and swimming trunks are treated as plural; swimming suit or swimming costume is not; 'my swimming trunks are wet', but 'my swimming costume is wet'. I have no idea why.
The "why" here is interesting :)
Before the days of modern tailoring, such garments, whether underwear or outerwear, were indeed made in two parts, one for each leg. The pieces were put on each leg separately and then wrapped and tied or belted at the waist (just like cowboys’ chaps). The plural usage persisted out of habit even after the garments had become physically one piece.
The earliest known trousers are a single piece. There's no evidence, either written or physical, that pants were put on in halves and tied together. This folk etymology was invented fairly recently and is believed by many people.
It seems there's pretty conclusive evidence that hose (a predecesor of modern trousers/pants in Western European fashion) were (at least originally) separate pieces: http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/cloth/bockhose.html
Whether this fact actually relates to where "pair of pants" comes from is, admittedly, a separate question. But word choice and terminology can certainly be influenced by analogy, so if "pair of hose(n)" (in its relevant Middle English rendering) was a thing, it would become much more likely that "pair of pantaloons" (whence "pair of pants") would originate. I suppose one could still call this folk etymology, for pants/trousers or pantaloons would never have been worn as two separate pieces, but it could still have very significant historical basis.
The translation is not English; "it" at the end of the sentence is wrong. Also "on" is needed in the first half of the sentence It should be "he swims without swimming trunks ON when no one can see HIM" or ..."when no one can see" (ie no additional words needed. Please correct it
- "On" - totally optional; no way I'd agree it's required.
- "It" - meh, I don't suppose I'd say it, but it doesn't sound wholly impermissible, and there's an unfortunate technical constraint that the suggestion that shows up here is also the one used as a prompt for translation into Dutch. And it's nice to have a prompt to include the "het."
Of course, they should be flexible with the translations they accept here.
"On" definitely isn't required here. There's nothing wrong with including it, but it's probably more common to omit it. The "on" part is understood with any article of clothing. I showed up for work today without a tie. I like running through the grass without shoes. I need to work out a little bit before I walk around without a shirt.