"You have trousers."
Translation:Ihr habt Hosen.
214 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
But your reply doesn't answer the question. The point is not only that quantity is unknown, but also that there are some translation difficulties related to the fact that in English a plural sounding "pants" actually equals one item of clothing. In English, we do in fact say "You have pants" or "You have trousers."
Is "Sie haben (or Du hast) eine Hose" an accepted translation? Because the english sentence is ambiguous in whether it is plural or singular.
It looks like it works the same as in English. In other words, with an inherently plural noun, you can have one of them or you can have several.
For example, if you went into a shop and said to your friend, "Sie haben Hosen" (They have trousers) you would be saying they have more than one item.
However, if the shop had just had a hugely successful sale and was about to close for the day, you might instead say "Sie haben eine Hose" (They have a pair of trousers), meaning there was only one item remaining.
You'd never say "They have a trouser" or "They have a pant", the noun is always plural in form, you use the indefinite article "a" or the definite article "the" with "pair of" to indicate the singular.
You could also say in English "The pair of pants" (one), or "The pairs of pants" (more than one) - the indicator of quantity is the plurality or not of the word "pair". The plurality of "pants" describes their inherent nature, two "tubes", or dare I say "hoses", of cloth functioning as a single entity. They cannot be divided and still be that entity. They (plural) are one (singular).
As had been mentioned already, other words written as plural where the plurality describes the inherent, indivisible nature, and not the quantity, are scissors and sunglasses. You can also add God to this list. Unlike us, Our Creator's nature is inherently plural (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but He is One being. In the original Hebrew, right from the first line of Genesis 1, the word we translate as God is plural: "Elohim", but the related verb "created" is in the singular form in Hebrew, indicating a single entity with inherent plurality.
I wasn't expecting to gain this understanding of the Trinity and German and English grammar today, but I enjoyed the discovery and hope you do too.
But Duolingo has so many sentences with singular nouns without any of ein/eine articles. My german teacher would always repeat that nouns must have articles before them, but as I see in Duolingo some exercises don't go by that rule. So eather they change everything or exept "Du habst Hose" answers.
nouns must have articles before them
That's mostly true for countable singular nouns, and what they need is a determiner before them.
A determiner could be an article, but it could also be a possessive or demonstrative determiner, for example -- not just "a book" or "the book" but also "my book" or "that book".
Indefinite plural nouns do not need an article, nor do uncountable singular nouns ("I need books", "I need water").
Hose is (a) countable and (b) singular. It follows the general rule of requiring a determiner before it.
We don't say that but because shirt/hat are not plural or singular. However, we do say, "You have pants." This can mean a single pair or multiple pairs of pants and seems to apply to this context. "Du hast Hosen" was accepted, does this mean that 'Hose' is only used for a single pair of pants and 'hosen' for multiple pairs in German?
Yes, eine Hose is a single pair of trousers, Hosen are multiple pairs of trousers. So du hast eine Hose for one and du hast Hosen for more. All combinations of du hast/ihr habt/Sie haben with eine Hose/Hosen are accepted because we don't know from the English sentence whether we are talking to one or more persons, or in a formal way, about one or more pairs of trousers.
Duolingo at its best. du hast Hose is rejected; ihr haben Hosen is correct. OK, "you" in english only translates - in this one instance - as plural. Or maybe not; maybe there's a "du" answer I don't get to see, where the single person has only one pair of pants/trousers - which would, I believe be Hose. not Hosen. It's no more plural than the german word for "eyeglasses" is plural - when referrign to a single pair. OK, maybe the "native speaker" who wrote this meant "you have (a great big stack of) trousers. That's not obvious from the English, but neither is the idea that - for this one question - the english word "you" only refers to the 2nd person plural pronoun.
I absolutely cannot tell what the error is 1) the person creating it thinks "you" is always plural 2) the person creating it thinks "trousers" refers to multiple pairs - a single pair, would, in their mind, be "trouser" :-( 3) I'm actually wrong, and "Hose" can never be used for a single, pair of pants - in spite of what I find in Langsceidt's New college dictionary, German-English section.
I reported as "the answer I gave should be marked correct", but what a useless exercise.
This new "improvement" of only showing the "best" answer really sucks. Especially one 2 or 3 answers are equally good (du, Sie, and ihr in this case), let alone where the the author's definition of "best" seems unnatural - I rarely hear "you (several people) have trousers" - it's much more common to talk about a single individual's clothes AFAICT.
Reason 9682 why I don't pay for duolingo plus - it's just not got sufficient quality control, and too frequently makes major changes that break previously useful material.
[read the discussion below, after typing this - I did wonder about whether an article might be required, when typing my answer - but once I'd been told that I was supposed to use "Hosen", I completely forgot about that possibility. And if I weren't equipped with a dictionary, and a fair amount of self confidence, I'd probably have "learned" from this correction that it's no more normal to ever say "Hose" than it is to say "trouser". ]
In this translation Duo accepts all three versions of "you", as well as the singular for pants: Hose. This has been explained by the Mods in several places on this discussion page.
There is no mistake on Duo's behalf here, but
a common mistake for learners is forgetting to use an article in front of the singular form of Hose. (We tend to translate word-for-word and there is no article in front of English "pants", however it IS necessary in both languages for singular countable nouns. Directly quoting mizinamo (MOD):
Du hast Hose would be like saying "You have shirt" or "You have hat". That doesn't work -- it has to be "You have a shirt" or "You have a hat".
Compare this with another Duo sentence: "Er trägt einen Hut.". Note the article in front of a singular noun. You can see that we are making the mistake because of our English-tendencies. We need to think of "Hose" as "a pant" and translate accordingly--> "eine Hose".
I'm not saying Duo is perfect and free from error... but in this case, many people have made this same mistake, and it has been explained several times by the ever-so-patient MODs and contributors that you are so passionately claiming to be incorrect. (Huge thank you to them for providing us with FREE education and helpful answers!!!)
Edit @Kobnach: I just stumbled across the addition you made to your post, and I felt it was amazingly gracious. In retrospect, I hope my initial post didn't come across as aggressive. Best of luck with your studies! :-)
Thank you! Despite the explanations further up, your comment finally helped me figure out where I was going wrong. "Hose" being singular in German, not singular / plural like English.
So "Du hast Hose" => "You have pant" even though we English natives think it would be "You have pants".
I did wonder about whether an article might be required, when typing my answer - but once I'd been told that I was supposed to use "Hosen", I completely forgot about that possibility.
Duo's corrections can never replace those of a real thinking human.
In general, it seems to prefer corrections that do not change the number of words in a sentence, so it opted to change the incorrect Hose to Hosen rather than to eine Hose (adding a word).
Similarly, it seems to prefer corrections that keep earlier words the same, so someone translating "the cat" as der Katze may get corrected to der Kater (the tomcat) rather than to die Katze, as if Duo thinks that the user got the article der right but "misspelled" Kater as Katze, rather than the user getting the article of Katze wrong.
I highly recommend getting a real human teacher if you can find a good, affordable one.
There are three forms of "you" in German: informal singular (du), informal plural (ihr) and formal (Sie). They each conjugate verbs differently - kind of like how you have "I am" but "you are" or "he is", each of the three "you"s need a different form of the same verb. For haben, this corresponds to du hast, ihr habt and Sie haben. You can look up the conjugation of any verb on verbix.com or canoo.net.
That's true, and that's why both alternatives -- with eine Hose, singular, and Hosen, plural, are accepted.
Du hast Hose is not, of course, just as "You have shirt" or "You have hat" would not be acceptable. Countable objects in the singular almost always need a determiner of some sort in front of them, such as an indefinite article.
But these aren't good comparisons.
Yes they are -- I am comparing with singular countable nouns such as "shirt" and "hat", because in German, Hose is a singular countable noun.
"glasses" and "pants" are plural nouns in English, but that doesn't affect the fact that in German, Brille and Hose are singular countable nouns.
(So Du hast Brille. would also not be correct, because in German, Brille is singular, even though "glasses" is plural in English. The grammar -- whether an article before it is required -- is thus different between the two languages.)
In previous examples "Ihr" was "You all".
Only in the sentences added by the Pearson team -- unfortunately, though they were intended only for their own course using the Duolingo platform, they were visible in the public course as well. Hopefully this will be remedied at some point and the Pearson sentences split out from the public course.
Here, how was I supposed to tell if "you" meant "Ihr" or "Du"?
You cannot, and so both answers are acceptable -- both Ihr habt Hosen. and Du hast Hosen.
But in other exercise I've got "It is jewlery" to translate in German: "Es ist Schmuck". Der Schmuck is singular and countable noun and didn't require a determiner before it. Why?
Schmuck is not countable. You can't have drei Schmücke any more than you can have "three jewelleries".
In the information section for this lesson the issue of pants/trousers as plural in English was mentioned contrasting it with German Hose (single pair of pants) and Hosen (plural pairs of pants). Nothing was mentioned of an obligatory article with the German singular. The English stimulus "You have trousers" is completely ambiguous for how many pairs. If an article is necessary in German for singular, that should be added to the background information.
No, that an article is necessary in German is something you should already know. You have been practising with sentences like "Du hast eine Zeitung". Why would "Hose" behave differently than "Zeitung"? And look at it differently instead of complaining: because you did it wrong now, you will never forget it again. You have learned something!
I totaly agree with you. Josee. Complaining is never the best way. Besides, I am learning three other languages here and I can tell that this one (German from English) is by far the best. Explanations are very clear, our Mizinamo is perfect, and the exercises are well done. German is a difficult language but they make it easy to lern.
So is "Hose" just a single pair of trousers and "Hosen" is multiple pairs of trousers?
So you wouldn't say "Du trägst Hosen" because that would imply one person is wearing multiple pairs of trousers at once?
At least not in the sense of "You are wearing trousers".
You might use it in the sense of "You wear trousers" (regularly), implying that he has multiple trousers which he wears at various times, even if only one particular pair at once.
No. Du hast Hose is not correct.
Hose is a countable noun in German, so in the singular, you need an article: Du hast eine Hose.
Du hast Hose would be like saying "You have shirt" or "You have hat". That doesn't work -- it has to be "You have a shirt" or "You have a hat".
- "ihr" is used when talking to more than one person. If it helps, you can think of it as "You all."
- "du" is used for talking to just one person in a familiar/casual way. This is not appropriate for strangers, bosses, teachers, etc.
- "Sie" (with a capital 'S') also means "you" and is used for talking to one person in a formal/respectful way. ... I know you didn't ask about "Sie", but it's good to know since we're on the topic :-)
When translating "you" from English to German on Duo, you can take your pick from the three. There will only be one answer on the discussion page, but all forms are equally correct without context. Duo will accept du/Sie/ihr as long as you used the corresponding form of the verb. For example, "you have":
- du hast // Sie haben // ihr habt
when is "Hose" ever used, if it means "pant"?
It doesn't mean "pant".
The word "pants" is always plural in English, similar to "spectacles/glasses" or "scissors" or "binoculars".
But in German, you have Hose, which refers to one pair of pants, and Hosen, which refers to multiple pairs of pants.
Just "pants" can be either (eine) Hose or Hosen, depending on how many you're talking about.
For example, "I like those pants you're wearing right now" would be Ich mag die Hose, die du gerade trägst, but "I bought some pants yesterday" could be either Ich habe gestern eine Hose gekauft or Ich habe gestern ein paar Hosen gekauft depending on how many pairs you bought.
You've drawn my attention to something I must try to remember about "ein paar", mizinamo. You give us the sentence "Ich habe gestern ein paar Hosen gekauft", with "ein paar Hosen" meaning, of course, "a few pairs of trousers". If I'd been given that sentence to translate I might have slipped up and translated "ein paar Hosen" as "a pair of trousers". The trouble is "paar" is so obviously a cognate of "pair" and indeed "ein paar" can mean "a pair" as well as "a few", can't it? (I'm thinking of the phrase "das heilige Paar" for Mary and Joseph in the Christmas Carol "Stille Nacht"!)
I'm afraid I've expressed myself clumsily but, to sum up, I suggest, firstly, we must beware of translating word for word and, secondly, we must treat "ein paar" as potentially a false friend.
That would be like saying "You have pair of pants".
It doesn't work; Hose is countable, like "pair", so in the singular, you need a determiner before it (such as an article).
Sie haben Hosen and Sie haben eine Hose work as translations of "You have pants" -- the first one says that you have multiple pairs of pants, the second that you have one pair of pants.
the use of the Du form is also correct in English.
What do you mean?
"du" is a German word, not an English word.
What is a "Du form" supposed to be in English?
the given correction
What do you mean with that?
Nobody can see what you see, so please always quote entire sentences -- e.g. the full text of a correction or the complete text of your answer. Please do not just quote individual words as often the problem is not with one individual word but with word order or the gender of an article or adjective elsewhere in the sentence.
as the only option.
Nearly all sentences (including this one) on Duolingo have multiple correct answers. Sometimes thousands of correct answers.
In a correction, you will usually only be shown one of the correct answers - but that doesn't imply that there is only that one.
For the same reason that we wouldn’t say “You have shirt” in English.
Shirts have two sleeves, but we still consider “shirt” a countable singular noun. You can “wear a shirt” or “buy three shirts”.
In German, it’s the same with Hose: pants have two legs, but Germans consider Hose a countable singular noun. It’s just one object, after all: pick it up anywhere and the entire garment will rise up from the floor. So in German, you can say du hast eine Hose or ich kaufe drei Hosen.
But du hast Hose makes as little sense as “you have shirt”.
least make the english translation a plural version of the word you
"you" is the plural version of the word in English.
The singular "thou" dropped out of usage and so the plural "you" is now used whether you are speaking to one person or to many of them.
People in some areas have come up with new, explicitly plural forms such as "y'all", "yinz", or "ye", but in standard English, just "you" is the plural form.
There is more than one correct translation, so there is no one single "the" answer.
Thanks. Let's just a agree that it is misleadingly confusing, and not clear at all how many pairs it is referring to.
It would be nice if we had to write both likely correct responses out. I would like to show that i can conjugate both forms of 'you have' and show plurals or singular of 'pants.' All four possible combinations could have been correct, right? English doesn't specify. Most likely 'Du hast Hose' or 'Ihr habt Hosen' but you wanted the latter, which I do not understand why.
Did not accept Du hast
That would surprise me (at least, if the remainder of the sentence is correct)
and it wanted Hosen rather than the singular.
And this, too; both Hosen and eine Hose should be accepted.
Do you have a screenshot of it not accepting an answer you consider correct?
My feeling is "Du hast Hose" should be correct.
It is as incorrect as "You have shirt" or "You have hat".
If someone who habitually goes topless suddenly appears in a shirt, would you say "You have shirt"?
No - either "You have a shirt" or "You have shirts".
Similarly, you can say Du hast eine Hose or Du hast Hosen. But Du hast Hose doesn't make grammatical gense in German.
Please tell me how I was using the wrong word.
Please first tell us your entire sentence.
Or even better, show us a screenshot (upload it to a website somewhere and paste the URL here).
Nobody can see what you wrote, so nobody can help you if you won't tell us what your answer was.
???? I have read down this thread rather far. (My favourite intervener is mizinamo. Thank you, though you should refrain from advising us all to get a live teacher which seems to contradict the purported aims of Duolingo.) We seem to up against the annoyance of Discovery learning techniques.<h1>1 So… (what follows is a question)</h1>
I seem to have discovered that correct answers would be: Du hast eine Hose. Du hast Hosen. feminine noun s. / pl. Ihr habt eine Hose. Ihr habt Hosen. Sie haben eine Hose. Sie haben Hosen. ??????? When we read Hose, we should understand a pair of trousers (the word pair being a singular, non-count noun).<h1>2 So further, this is like… (again, what follows is a question)</h1>
Du isst eine Orange. Du isst Orange. feminine noun s. / pl Ihr esst eine Orange. Ihr esst Orangen. Sie essen eine Orange. Sie essen Orangen. ??????<h1>3 Assuming I have got it right so far, and just to check that I have got this all sorted out, are these next sentences equivalent correct sentences with the definite determinant (not correct translations for “You have trousers” but rather “You have the pants”):</h1>
Du hast die Hose. Du hast die Hosen. Ihr habt die Hose. Ihr habt die Hosen. Sie haben die Hose. Sie haben die Hosen. Is this correct?<h1>4 (yet another question) Do these sentences translate “You wear NO ”, “You are NOT wearing A/ANY jacket” (using a negative indefinite determiner, in English no, not one) (this part I am really not sure about):</h1>
Du trägst keine Jacke. …none with you on this very cool evening?! Ihr tragt keine Jacke Sie tragen keine Jacke. Du hast keine Jacken. …you don’t own one?! Ihr habt keine Jacken. Sie haben keine Jacken. (I couldn't imagine why someone does not wear pants, certainly not why they would, or would not, wear more than one pair of pants.) Have I got this right?<h1>5 Could the sentences for "You have trousers", at the top, also mean "you have SOME trousers... on the clothes horse in the laundry room" ((affirmative) indefinite determinant)? Du hast eine Hose... Du hast Hosen... Ihr habt / Sie haben... ....</h1>
If you have reached this far and can help, thanks in advance.
you should refrain from advising us all to get a live teacher
Duolingo has limits -- chief of them being that it doesn't actually understand any language but can only compare text strings. Sometimes people come up against these limits. None of the people who read these sentence discussions are programmers working for Duolingo, so we have no influence on these limits.
Do you have advice for what I should say instead when someone says, "A human would have known that this was an honest mistake!" ?
correct answers would be: Du hast eine Hose. Du hast Hosen. feminine noun s. / pl. Ihr habt eine Hose. Ihr habt Hosen. Sie haben eine Hose. Sie haben Hosen. ?
That is correct.
When we read Hose, we should understand a pair of trousers
(the word pair being a singular, non-count noun).
No. "trousers" is always plural and is not countable, but "pair" is countable -- you can have "one pair of trousers" or "three pairs of trousers".
this is like… (again, what follows is a question)
Du isst eine Orange. Du isst Orange. feminine noun s. / pl Ihr esst eine Orange. Ihr esst Orangen. Sie essen eine Orange. Sie essen Orangen. ?
Those sentences are all correct German, but English would make the same singular/plural distinction as German does: "You are eating an orange" versus "You are eating oranges".
are these next sentences equivalent correct sentences with the definite determinant (not correct translations for “You have trousers” but rather “You have the pants”):
Du hast die Hose. Du hast die Hosen. Ihr habt die Hose. Ihr habt die Hosen. Sie haben die Hose. Sie haben die Hosen. Is this correct?
Yes, that's correct.
Du trägst keine Jacke. …none with you on this very cool evening?!
Ihr tragt keine Jacke
I would use the plural here (ihr tragt keine Jacken): if you're talking to five people you would expect to see five jackets -- not one jacket encompassing all of them at once.
But the singular is sometimes used in German in a "one per person" meaning.
Du hast keine Jacken. …you don’t own one?
You would use plural keine Jacken if you would expect that person to own two or more jackets.
You would use keine Jacke if you would expect the person to own exactly one jacket.
For example, I might say ich habe keine Kinder (plural, because many people have two or more children) but ich habe keine Ehefrau (singular, because most people have at most one wife [at a time]).
With jackets, either might work.
I'm not quite sure what you mean with question 5, but "some" as an indefinite plural determiner is generally not translated in German, so Du hast Hosen could translate to "you have pants/trousers" or "you have some pants/trousers", and Du isst Orangen could be either "you are eating oranges" or "you are eating some oranges":
Without context there is no indication in English that "You have Trousers" is either singular or plural
So both Du hast Hosen. and Du hast eine Hose. are possible.
But "Du hast Hose" is as wrong as "you have shirt" or "you have coat" would be -- you need an article before a countable singular noun.
Can someone please explain
Have you read all of the comments on this page?
It has been explained several times why Du hast Hose. is bad German.
Du hast Hosen., on the other hand, is accepted as a translation.
And since capitalisation is (unfortunately) ignored by Duolingno, Du hast hosen. will also work.
"You"could also be a singular pronoun
this should not be a mistake
Please always quote your entire answer when you have a question.
Since nobody can see what you wrote, references to "this" or "my answer" are not helpful.
Please always always read all the comments before posting a new one, to see whether your question has been asked before and has already received an answer.
Why is 'Du' not right?
Because you are asked to translate an entire sentence here -- "You have trousers." -- but Du simply means "you", not "you have trousers".
For that, you need Du hast Hosen. or Du hast eine Hose.
I don't understand how to tell if it is supposed to be a formal or informal 'you' from an English sentence.
Must of the time, you can't, which is why both Du hast ... and Ihr habt ... are accepted in front of ... eine Hose or ... Hosen.
Also, in case you wrote more than just Du -- please always quote your entire answer when you have a question.
Often, if a question is rejected, the reason for the error lies in a different part of the sentence than the one that someone quotes in a comment here.
The English sentence doesn't specify whether 'you' here is singular or plural.
That's right - which is why both translations are accepted.
There lots of mistakes in English though.
But if you don't identify them, they will never be fixed.
- Which sentence has a mistake?
- Where in that sentence is a mistake?
- Why is it wrong?
- What should it be instead?
Just saying "there are mistakes" helps nobody.
You can't know whether "you" is singular or plural. That means that both du and ihr will be accepted. You need the corresponding conjugation of the verb.
And don't forget to think about "trousers": is it a single pair of trousers (eine Hose) or more pairs of trousers (Hosen). Good luck, you can do it!
"You" in English can be both.
That's how standard English works. ("y'all, ye, yinz, ..." are all regional; there is no standard word specifically for "you plural" that is accepted everywhere.)
Duolingo is not going to change the English language.
So it goes with what it has -- and accepts both singular and plural translations for an English "you", e.g. both du hast Hosen and ihr habt Hosen.
Asking for a separate word for ihr in English would be like asking for a separate word for dich as opposed to du (object versus subject) -- distinguishing between "I see you and you see me". Standard English simply doesn't have this distinction, and Duolingo isn't going to invent one.
Unless you wish to set up your students to fail ... there appears to be little point in setting questions which have multiple correct answers, without accepting all possible correct answers.
The English "you" is interchangeable plural / singular and relies on context for its true meaning to be discerned. This question fails to set any context. A graphic showing either one, or multiple, trousered people, would direct students towards providing the desired, multiple "you" verb conjugation. BSc(Hons), PGCE, QTS.
there appears to be little point in setting questions which have multiple correct answers, without accepting all possible correct answers.
In most cases, this course does accept all reasonable correct answers.
Do you have an example of a correct answer that is rejected? Ideally with a screenshot showing the kind of exercise and exactly what was typed?
The English "you" is interchangeable plural / singular and relies on context for its true meaning to be discerned.
That is correct. For this reason, both singular and plural answers are accepted, e.g. Du hast eine Hose. Ihr habt eine Hose. Du hast Hosen. Ihr habt Hosen.
I trust you have already read all of the previous comments on this page and are not under the misconception that something such as Du hast Hose could possibly be correct German.
Why is du wrong?
du just means "you". It doesn't mean "You have trousers."
You're supposed to translate the entire sentence, e.g. Du hast eine Hose. or Du hast Hosen. (Depending on whether you have one pair of pants or many pairs of pants -- the English sentence is ambiguous, and so both of those translations are accepted, along with several others.)
"die Hose" does mean trousers!
No. die Hose means "the trousers". It would refer to a specific pair of trousers that the listener can identify.
Just "trousers", when referring to one pair of trousers, is eine Hose. And when referring to several pairs of trousers, "trousers" is Hosen.
So my answer, "Sie haben die Hose" is a correct answer too!
No. It's a grammatically-correct sentence but not a correct translation of "You have trousers", since Sie haben die Hose means "You have the trousers".
Like the difference between você tem calças and você tem as calças, I think.