"Which horses are you sitting on?"
Translation:Auf welchen Pferden sitzt ihr?
Besides the Articles, you inflect endings onto nouns: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) masculine and neuter Genitive: -s (-es if the word ends on s, ß, x or z) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Dative plural: -n (-ø (no ending), if the plural ends on n) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)Some masculine words like Junge, Knabe, Bär, Name, Zeuge, Bube, student, Löwe, and some others end on -en (or -n if there is an e at the end of the word) in all casus exept the nominative singular (called n-declination)
Michael, no. Most nouns will have an n at the end no matter what if it's dative plural. That's just how it is. den Männern, den Kindern, den Computern, den Schülern, den Pferden, den Tischen, (unless the standard plural is -s... and maybe some other exception that doesn't come to mind at the moment).
Yes, your teachers were following incorrect 'rules'.
So many rules of "correct English" change with the decades. AT school in the 90's we were told you never start a sentence with "and". Or "but".
But of course, as you read books and start creative writing you realise this is a load of rubbish. And you wonder has your teacher ever read a book before?
For a bonus point: "I before E excet after C" is DRILLED into UK primary school children. Then we go to High School. And we realise that there are far more examples of words that go against this rule.
I will be the first to say it: The English language is screwed. A mess.
There is a comical quote falsely attributed to Winston Churchill that demonstrates this false grammar rule quite well. It goes, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put". Obviously, "to not put up with" and other phrases in English have to end in a preposition or they don't make sense.
In theory yes, but most native speakers ignore this rule.
"On which horse are you sitting?" sounds archaic and too formal for spoken English. The only contexts I can think that this rule would be followed is in written law, conversation with a monarch or inside the Houses of Parliament!
I don't know where you live in the UK but many more educated people here in the North do speak like that: "On who's authority is that?" "From where did you get that?" It's really not as archaic as you think, it's just the reserve of the half of the population who read a lot and are exposed to more culture and media outlets than what they see on reality TV.
No. Consider the following- a. (Sitzt) ihr? --The verb goes to the first position. b. Wo (sitzt) ihr? -- Verb in position two. c. (Auf welchen Pferden) (sitzt) ihr? -- Verb still in position two.
In a, the verb is in the 1st position, as expected. in b, it goes to the 2nd position as there is a question word that precedes it. in c, it remains in the 2nd position. This is because entire clauses can be considered together as a single chunk. Here, the clause is Auf welchen Pferden. You are trying to split it by pushing auf to the end. So, your translation is wrong.
No, there are a few corrections needed. "Pferden" must be capitalized, and the verb should be spelled "sitzt". Also, the preposition "auf" must be followed by its object, which in this case is "welchen Pferden". The word "auf" should only be at the end like that if it's part of a separable verb, e.g. "Ich stehe auf." (aufstehen) In that case it's not a preposition, so different rules apply.
I just tried: Auf welchen Pferden sitzst du. (instead of "sitzt ihr") and it was accepted. But then I realized that ihr is multiple people sitting on multiple horses, but du is just one person sitting on one horse (selected out of a group of horses), but my sentence still reflects that "du" is "sitting" on a singular "horse". But, Pferden is not singular.
So, I'm now wondering if: Auf welches Pferd sitzst du? is a properly written question to ask a single person sitting on a single horse?
There are two main issues:
1. Since "sie" is not capitalized, it can only mean she or they, not you.
2. The conjugation "sitzt" is only used for du, er/sie/es, and ihr. Since you used "sie", the sentence you wrote means: "Which horses is she sitting on?"
Although not as critical to understanding your intention, both "auf" and "pferden" should be capitalized, as well.
Here are a few examples of correct translations that might help:
Auf welchen Pferden sitzen Sie?
Auf welchen Pferden sitzt ihr?
Auf welchen Pferden sitzt du?
If 'Auf' triggers the dative case, then shouldn't it be 'welchem' ?
Is it because the answer to the question will involve a direct object ? That is - we will sit 'on these horses'. Here 'these horses' is a direct object, hence the question is welchen. But the auf(on) forcefully triggers the dative case hence Pferde becomes Pferden.
Does this make sense ?
i am struggling with this sentence, but my take would be this: the plural for horse (Pferd) is Pferde the rule for dative words is 'everything gets an 'n' ' in the plural case.
now welche (which) declines for case and gender
Because it is dative and plural then it gets an 'n' ending as well.
M: welcher (er to go with der) F: welche (e to go with die) N:welches (es to go with das) P:welche (e to go with die)
M:welchen(en to go with den) F:welche (e to go with die) N:welches (s to go with das) P:welche (e to go with die)
M and N: welchem (em to go with dem) F:welcher (er to go with der) P:welchen(en to go with den...everything gets an 'n' for dative plural)
and I'm assuming dative use of auf because there is no movement from one place to another, the simple statement of what are you (all) sitting on implies that there is either just a statement or whatever movement there is, is within the confines of the situation.
so auf(dative) welchen (dative plural declension) Pferden (dative plural)...after that i struggle with the whole ordering of the sentence.
Just replying to myself as I still try and grapple this statement. So I have re-arranged the sentence to have it make sense to me, in turn hoping that the german structure still works.
re-arranged to: you are sitting on which horses
Du sitzt (and presumably Sie sitzen, ihr sitzt) auf welchen Pferden
This was accepted
is this a perfectly normal rearrangement of the words for a german sentence?
Maybe it's not a real horse. Maybe it's a statue of a horse. "You can't sit there!" Don't overthink it. Except for horse jockeys who seem to ride their horses with their butts hovering over the saddle, one generally needs to sit on a horse in order to ride it. You can sit on it and not ride it (perhaps the horse refuses to move).