BTW English people, 'hemd' is most commonly used for what we would call a vest. (another word would be singlet)
Short for 'Onderhemd' - undershirt, or vest, though also short for 'Overhemd' -which is pretty easy to translate, and would be what we call a shirt. (i have been living in the netherlands for several years)
'hempje' is then definitely just a vest, though also one you would wear as an actual top so a tank top or spaghetti strap.
(This comment is not for people who speak other forms of English, clothing just gets confusing when people translate across. For instance, 'vest' in America is what we would call a 'waistcoat'.)
I don't think any young people in America call a vest a waistcoat. We just say vest. And why does Duo say that a "hemd" is a shirt when you scroll over it?
I do see the mention of article 'a'. I do not see 'een' mentioned anywhere in the sentence.
Pronunciation question: in a case like "draag geen" in which the gutteral "g" sound appears in consecutive syllables, should one just sort of meld them together to create a "draageen" sound? At a conversational pace, I can't imagine any other solution.
Off topic, but I completely thought that you typed "drag queen" and not "draag geen".
Since no one answered this yet, yes you are right. The two G's meld together in practical situations.
I imagine the exact way to pronounce it probably differs from person to person, but as a native speaker I find that when I pronounce two consecutive G's (especially when talking slowly) I usually do it like this:
(Warning: you don't have to worry about any of this, especially not as a beginner. I'm only writing this because some of you might find it interesting.)
While this is usually not true in practice, in your head you often think you are pronouncing the transition between two words as vowel-consonant-short pause-consonant-vowel. I noticed I start pronouncing a G in the first consonant space, keep it going in the pause space, and to signify the transition to a different letter I pronounce the second G a little louder. So if "G" stands for a louder Dutch G sound and "g" for a softer pronunciation, the transition between "draag geen" would be like "ggG" (a longer softer G followed by a short slightly louder G), or sometimes as "GgG" (starting out loudish, getting little softer but not stopping between words, and getting a louder again at the end). At times the softer "g" sounds almost like an H sound. But as I said, this is at slow or medium speed. At faster talking speeds "draag geen" becomes indistinguishable from "draa geen". Although as I said these specifics probably differ from person to person.
I find I do more or less the same thing when pronouncing two consecutive "th" sounds in English. When saying "it's worth thinking about" I use one long "th" sound which shortly gets a little louder as my tongue pushes itself off from my teeth.
((PS: To be clear, I'm not talking about the so-called "harde G" and "zachte G" (Two different pronunciations of G in the Dutch language. The former being used in most of the Netherlands, and the latter in the southern provinces of the Netherlands and in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking parts of Belgium). By "G" and "g" I meant the intensity with which you pronounce the "harde G".))
Came here to ask exactly this! When this occurs in a lot of other languages, the difference is even reflected in how you'd write it down. I'm surprised Dutch doesn't seem to do this.
How about, "I am shirtless?" Is, Ik ben geen hemd, correct? Misschien, Ik heb geen hemd?
'Ik heb geen hemd' - 'I do not have a shirt'
'Ik ben geen hemd' - 'I am not a shirt' (I doubt it needs mentioning that you are in fact not a shirt).
Thank you for the clarification! I was curious to find out if it was similar to, "Het kind heeft het koude." Meaning , the child is cold, not that the child carries cold in her pocket. :)
What I meant by 'Ik ben geen hemd' was to figure out how to express "I am shirtless" in Dutch. I suppose 'Ik heb geen hemd" means the same thing. To say, 'I am shirtless' in English could mean the same thing as 'I am not wearing a shirt' or "I am topless" but these are completely new sentences. 'I am shirtless' implies the speaker has forgotten to pack enough shirts for their trip or the laundry needs to be done or perhaps the sartorial bandit strikes again! Whereas ' I am topless ' implies immodesty. Could one say 'I am shirtless' "Ik ben zonder een hemd', 'I am without a shirt?'
If you forgot to pack a shirt, I'd definitely use 'Ik heb geen hemd' or 'Ik heb geen hemd beschikbaar' to say that you are shirtless. Beschikbaar means available.
I'm not quiet sure about 'Ik ben zonder een hemd', though I could see myself using 'Ik zit zonder (een) hemd' to describe I do not have a shirt available to myself at the moment.
I'd go with 'Ik heb geen hemd' or 'Ik heb geen hemd beschikbaar' if you were to ask me to recommend one of the options above.
If you want to point out you are not wearing a shirt at the moment, stick with 'Ik draag geen hemd'.
In general, "-less" would be "-loos" in Dutch, e.g. "ik ben werkloos" (I am unemployed), deze vertaling is foutloos (this translation is flawless)
I've noticed in the English for Dutch Speakers course, it is also using the word shirt in place of hemd.. i.e. "Ik drag geen shirt".
Is that common?
this time I really don't understand the necessity of the word "a". could someone explain? thanks in advance