1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Draag jij een schoen?"

"Draag jij een schoen?"

Translation:Are you wearing a shoe?

July 17, 2014



The speech got cut off on the word 'schoen' .


Bent u van Malta?


Ik hou van maltees. Why do you ask?


The maltese-uk flag pin was why, wow I just found this, lol.


I'm doing a lot of Maltese promotion.


Hopefully they're listening and looking at applications, it's probably the easiest Semitic language to learn because of the influence from the Romance languages and the fact that it uses the Latin alphabet.


Komt u uit malta*, the way you did it sounds REALLY Flemish, which isn't the Dutch they're teaching here.


What is the proper way to pronounce "schoen"


The tricky bit is that it starts with s followed by the last sound of loch. If that's too hard, I am sure you will be understood if you replace sch by sh, or in other words pronounce sch the German way.


Makes sense. Dank u wel!


My dutch grandmother commonly pronounces English "sh" words like "sk". She says "skrink" for "shrink", "skoot" for "shoot", "skining" for "shining"; so I've assumed that "sk" is better than "sh" based on this. Am I incorrect?


I am very far from an expert on Dutch phonetics, but my guess would be that what sounds lik sk to you is actually closer to the proper s-ch pronunciation.

During our first year of life we have learned which frequencies correspond to which phonemes of our native language. The mappings for other languages are different, and so two instances of the same phoneme can sound totally different to us (e.g. Chinese r sometimes sounds like French j to me and sometimes like English r) and two different phonemes can sound the same to us.


What I mean is, when she's speaking English, she uses "sk" instead of "sh". It sounds different when she speaks Dutch.


the "sk" pronunciation for words with "sch" in Dutch is dialect. Where does she come from?


She's from Gelderland; Nijkerk, I believe.


Ah yes, in that regional dialect, they say sk in stead of sch :)


Thanks, that explains a lot. Seems she's imported that dialect into English!

She also inserts extra syllables between l or r and a following consonant. For instance, the way she says "melk" sounds like "mellik" and "kerk" sounds like "kerrik". I had long thought this was how dutch was supposed to sound, but I've noticed the nice lady who reads out the sentences here on duolingo doesn't do this. Is this a common dialectal feature as well?


Hi Jazzybeard, Sorry, I noticed your last comment about mellek and kerrek just now.. Schwah insertion is used to ease pronunciation and not necessarily dialect, although most ABN (Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands) speakers would prefer melk and kerk without it. Here is a link to a useful site about Dutch language on this phenomenon: https://onzetaal.nl/taaladvies/advies/svarabhaktivocaal (you might need Google Translate ;))


I manage it by modifying a gutteral G. I just do it softer. You can also come close by starting with sch as sh then add a k sound and immediately stifle it like you just realized it does not belong there.

Here's an approch for all you techie nerds.

Go to Forvo. https://forvo.com/languages/nl/ using a browser on your phone for playback and record the playback with your Desktop's mic or connect your phone's headphone out to your PC' Mic In female input.

Record a few Dutch people saying Schiphol, Scheveningen and of course schoen and schoenen.

Now that you have recorded these as mp3 files in your computer.

You can use your favorite multi-track audio processing app to take copies and edit down to just the sch sound, being sure to back up your newly obtained files.

Once you have edited down the files, select one or two of these to analyze as visual depiction(s) of the wave form.

Now, slow the clip down and listen while viewing the wave form.

Now the fun part! Playback the clip(s) wait a beat or two, then try to approximate the sound using the techniques I outlined at the beginning.

Document your progress by recording your attempts.

Take the one(s) that most closely match what you have heard.

You can compare your waveform with the Dutch sound samples.

You've probably nailed it a while back. But, it's also a great distraction during Covid Stay at Home Times!


Anyone know why is it "Draag" and not "Draagt" when it is "jij"?


It's a general phenomenon that the second person singular -t is cut off when the word order is inverted in a question. (I know this from the excellent Michel Thomas Dutch course.)


I think you mean second person singular. Thanks for all of your helpful comments, though!


Thanks, it's corrected now. And thanks.


Is this sentence odd in Dutch too?


Does it make sense not to accept "Draag je..." in this sentence? Thanks!


It should certainly be accepted, except in a dictation. In a dictation you are always expected to hear which it is, though jij and je can only be distinguished in the slow voice. This is a bug of the fast voice.


Surely 'one shoe' should also be accepted? If anything it seems a more likely question.


I think “one shoe” would have to be “één schoen” rather than “een schoen”, but I could be wrong.

I agree that the “a shoe” version sounds very weird, but knowing Duolingo it’s possible that it sounds just as weird in Dutch.


Well, I believe "een schoen" could mean "one shoe." All I know is that "één" is used for emphasis. "One shoe" may not necessarily be used for emphasis, and I believe then you would just use "een."


As it has been explained to me, één is one and een is a/an. This may have to do with emphasis sometimes, but I think it pretty much matches up with the difference between English "one" and "a/an".


the way it's pronounced, it means "a" /ən/ - a (sounds like "an") /eːn/ - one (sounds almost like the "ain" in "pain")


Yes, very good point, seeing as 'een' also means one. However, it would probably be accented as 'één' in that case.


"Een" as in "one" is pronounced as the "ain" in pain, as is één.


Why not "Are you wearing shoes?"


Because "een schoen" is "a shoe". "Shoes" would be "schoenen"


Why is the translation for present progressive and not simply just present? Are they the same thing in Dutch?


English is the only language I know in which the progressive is not optional. (Only Spanish comes close to English in this respect, but it's not quite as strict, either.) In most European languages you can express it in some way or other, but you only bother if it really matters and you want to stress it, if the progressive nature can't be inferred from context, or as an affectation. This is one of the persistent difficulties for learners of English.

The Dutch progressive is a bit cumbersome. In this case it would be: "Bent je een schoen aan het dragen?" ("Are you a shoe at the wearing?") But unless the other person has only a single leg, the progressive is redundant because it is implied.


It's really interesting to me that English's closest relatives don't generally bother with the present progressive, but Japanese has a verb construction that's almost exactly the same.


The progressive is not a deeply ingrained feature of a language. It arises naturally out of people's desire to express things drastically.

At first it's not a progressive at all but something you can say only on rare occasions to make clear that the action is going on right now. In that stage it's usually a relatively clumsy expression. Then people start to use it more and more generally, and they start to abbreviate it. Instead of "I am in the process of going", or something else to that effect, they say "I am in the going", "I am in going" and finally "I am going". They also start to use it when something is not actually going on right now but will be very soon. And at some point it becomes so normal to use this new tense/aspect that it becomes odd, and finally a grammar mistake, not to use it when you could.

For some reason a lot of linguistic developments that are going on all over Europe have happened faster in English. This is one of them. In German you still say that you are "at the doing something" if you really want to express the progressive aspect, and even that is colloquial. In Dutch, which is more progressive than German though less than English, you can use the same clumsy expression as in German, but it's already a regular feature of the standard language. In French you say that you are "in train [original meaning: movement] of doing something". All these progressive forms are still so long that they have little chance of becoming mandatory before they have been abbreviated.


English's closest relatives don't have mandatory progressives, but English's closest neighbours do - I mean the Celtic languages. For example, in Irish (which you can learn on Duolinguo), you have to distinguish between ithim "I eat" and táim ag ithe "I'm eating".


Yes, and Irish has continuous present etc., like "Bíonn mé ag siúl" means "I walk" (if it is an everyday, repeated activity) or the colloquial "I do be walking", as many Irish people would say; but "Tá mé ag siúl" means "I am walking" as in right now... Irish is complicated! I learned it at school for 12 years, and I'm still kind of confused :D


@ataltane: Oops, slip of the tongue, yes yes, of course I meant "bíonn mé", not "beidh mé"! But you can also say "Tá mé ag siúl" when you mean "I am walking" as opposed to "I walk". I'm editing my original comment now to make sure I don't confuse anyone :) Have a lingot for your troubles!


Well, beidh mé ag siúl is actually the future continuous: "I will be walking". "I walk" is siúlann mé... on the other hand, bíonn mé ag siúl is what underlies the Hiberno-English "I do be walking". Irish is pretty fond of the habitual tenses!


why can you not use je here?


what kind of question is that?


Weird question. Who wears only one shoe?


Another phrase i get incorrect because it makes no sense 'are you wearing a shoe' no one will say this ever and i will never ask anyone this


What is the difference between je an jij??


Je and jij both mean you, jij is the stressed version, to convey emphasis.

So “I didn’t do it, you did” could be translated as “Ik deed het niet, jij deed het”, but translating with je is also fine.


Why not "Are you wearing shoes?"


for jij, shouldn't we use draagt instead of draag?


Jij/je uses -t except if it comes right after the verb, like in questions. Draag jij de borden? vs Jij draagt de borden.


I am very confused... between the difference of 'jij' and 'je'....


Are you also confused about the difference between "it is" and "it's"? This is the most similar phenomenon in English. Just think of jij as the long form and je as the shortened form, somewhat similar to a contraction.

Using "it's" instead of "it is" makes a sentence slightly less formal. Sometimes "it is" is stressed and we wouldn't normally use "it's" instead. (Example: "Yes, it is." This never becomes: "Yes, it's.") And "it's" is ambiguous because it can also mean "it has".

Using je instead of jij makes a sentence slightly less formal (or at least did so a few decades ago). Sometimes jij is stressed and we wouldn't normally use je instead. (Example: "Het is jij." This never becomes: "Het is je.") And je is ambigous because it can also mean jou or jouw.


Draag jij een schoen? Nee, ik draag schoenen


Wearing two shoes still means you also wear a shoe tho ;)


Why is "draag je een schoen ?" not correct


unless you got a listening question that should be correct, are you sure you did not misspell anything?


Only one shoe?.. How can you walk?


Are you wearing a shoes


why not draag je een schoen


Both are correct, except if you got a listening exercise


De mannen is dieren


De mannen zijn dieren*, as mannen is plural

Learn Dutch in just 5 minutes a day. For free.