The bouncer glared down at the man approaching him. He was a timid, ultimately nebbish looking fellow, who didn't seem the sort who frequented nightclubs such as this one.
The man looked up at the bouncer, wringing his hands. "Uhhh....Ik wil..." he gestured helplessly. "Dat is...mag ik binnenk--"
The bouncer held up a hand. "Nee, geen broek alsjeblieft."
The man paled. "Wat? ....Wat? Waarom?"
The bouncer shrugged. He didn't make the rules. People seemed to be getting into all sorts of freaky fads these days. "Je moet."
"Maar..." the man looked faintly ill. On the shy side, then. The bouncer didn't blame him.
"Ik ben een appel!" The man whispered frantically, impotently. The bouncer was taken aback only for a second. He shrugged again, this time more sympathetically. "Sorry."
The man looked vaguely upset, and he peeked around the bouncer to glance at the mayhem inside the nightclub. What little color in his face drained completely, and he stumbled off into the night. The bouncer hoped he'd find a nice bench to sit on and maybe calm down.
He didn't have time to dwell on it, as a woman approached him, looking tipsy. He held out a hand. "Waarom heb jij een eend?"
The woman didn't explain her duck, but they became friends as he warned her of the dangers of this place - "Dat is een slechte konijn!"
een slechte konijn? konijn = het een = without "e" it shouldn't be "een slecht konijn"?
What a story out of one sentence. Well done, you made me laugh so much. Great story telling.
It is with great pleasure that I gave this a Lingot and made the number "69"
If I were on the computer I would give you a lingot for that great story!
Upvoted because everyone on here is about 9-13 and apparently, we're their free babysitters. Yay/Uzis.
Which pants, English or American? I think both men, they pant, if lady is hot enough.
Alternatively if you are familiar with American English as well as British English this could translate as - No - I will go commando.
I'm British so that's how I interpreted the sentence. 'Vest' also causes confusion and 'thongs' for Australians.
Is there any way to know when to use broek rather than broeken. Just wondering as I got an earlier question wrong for using broek.
As far as I understand so far, “broek” is a pair of pants and “broeken” two or more pairs. Apparently in Dutch those plural but single nouns such as “scissors” and “pants” (and I can't think in more examples right now) are not used, so they are always singular when is just one. Did I make any sense? (I'm also learning English, sorry).
The word for pants works like the word for glasses. In English we would say a pair of pants (a single pant is one leg) and a pair of glasses (although a single glass is what your water is in). Apparently in Dutch,glasses (brill) and pants (broek) are not automatically pluralized, but are only plural if referring to multiple sets, becoming brillen en broeken.
I wear trousers (or kegs); I wear pants (grundegs) underneath; I don't wear anything under my pants /wilful misinterpretation
Waarom niet krijgen een nieuwe in België ? Nederlandstalige vrouwen zijn lekkere :Þ
Is there an option for UK English? Pants for me are underwear and trousers are what Americans call pants.
There is no option to change all the sentences to UK English on Duolingo, and because it is an American website the base language is US English. However, you can translate broeken as trousers, and you can also translate pants as onderbroeken. So British English words and definitions are included.
I don't think any American uses "trousers" anymore. "Pants" covers practically everything except underwear, which could be anything from boxers, briefs, tighty-whiteys, drawers, thongs, panties, you get the idea.
The difference is in the way you address the person, but the words are synonyms.
Alstublieft(als-'t-u-blieft) is the formal way to say please, and asjeblieft (als-je-blieft) is the informal. Usually in the Netherlands people use more the "Alsjeblieft" unless the circumstances require you to be polite.
thanks for emphasizing the 'je' and 't-u' in the middle. In the context of the this specific question i still don't quite get it. But when pants are taken off you'd choose the informal please I guess :)
It sounds like an answer to a question. "Do you want to buy some pants too?" "No, no pants please".
"Nee, geen broek alstublieft." was marked incorrect, I was just being a tad more formal!
Thanks. Exactly what I said. Shame I had to wade through reams of 'Ooh err missus' to find it.
But you can still answer woth one 'no': "do you want (to buy) pants (too)?" "No pants, please".
Why is it alsjeblieft? I find it more natural to say "Thank you" in English, and in Dutch "Thank you" is almost always taken as the negative (if someone offers me coffee and I say "dankjewel" they always have to check whether I want it or not).
I suppose it is something that a 5-year-old might say if you were trying to force her to wear trousers instead of a skirt, but then it would definitely have several exclamation marks after it.
In Dutch alsjeblieft is used both for "please" and "you're welcome", as I think you are aware. In this case, it is alsjeblieft because the subject is not offering you something, is just saying that he or she doesn't want any pants. So, no pants please.
You go to a very kinky party in Amsterdam. At the door, the bouncer stops you and says: No, no pants please.
Anyway, in a more realistic scenario, with a question: You buy some frietjes at the cafetaria, and the guy asks you "-Mayo?", to which you normally answer "Nee, geen mayo alsjeblieft". That's how Dutch works, because you asked someone to do something (or not to), not because you are thankful for someone asking the question.
I hate that America has the best access to the Internet. It makes most websites so...intellectually deprived?
Why is it "pants" in the translation? Shouldn't it be "pant" because it is not mentioned as "broeken"?
Like sasho said, it's an English "feature". Check it out here: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/32745/is-it-correct-to-use-pant-or-is-pants-better
From my understanding, "broek" is translated as "pants" it can't be in a singular form in Dutch (it is the same case/logic in my native language). I'm not 100% sure you can say "pant" in English as well. It is "one piece of pants"..
- Broek (singular) = (a pair of) pants = (a pair of) trousers
- Broeken (plural) = pants = trousers
Pants and trousers are plural nouns in English and hence are always plural, even for a single paire of pants/trousers
In english even if there is only one it is considered pants: 'can i have those pants' could be one pair or multiple. Even when you only have one, it is called a pair of pants in English. 1 pair of pants 2 pairs of pants... hope this makes sense there is never a single form of pant that is a word in english but has a completely different meaning.
no, just responding to your question about the usage of pant, ie. when it's a verb. A pair of pants in British English is a different thing to a pair of pants in American English, ie. pants in British English = underwear. The verb to pant has nothing to do with trousers or pants. To pant means to be out of breath.. like a dog might pant after a long run.
I had no idea underwear could be called pants.... Good to know if I ever visit the UK.
what kind of world are we in where i say excuse me, i am an apple then cats start drinking beer then bears start wearing shirts then people start to not tell the difference between skirts and dresses!?!?wow duolingo
Sounds like a line in a horror movie which could be called: Night of the living trousers
no, not pants please, i wrote and it says wrong and i think it shouldn't say that.
I believe you mean "Ze hebben geen rok". :) Or, if one wants to go to detail, "Ze dragen geen rok".
Idiomatic English would require "No, no trousers, thank you" (that is, "No, I do not want trousers, thank you (for asking)") except if this were a request - "No, we'd really prefer it if you did not wear pants, please. This is an important ceremony. "
Al praat ons van broekkies gebruik die Nederlanders nog "alsjeblieft". Welgedaan!
Come on people. Dont you understand? he said earlier that he wanted the dress!
I think broeken is pants while broek is pant. Any correction please. The above sentence i guess should be No, no pant please
No, no pants please! Has to be plural. A pant is only one leg of a pair of pants.
Broek is translated as ‘a pair of trousers/pants’ depending on whether you are using UK or US English, respectively. Broeken is the plural, and refers to multiple pairs of trousers/pants.
This the third borderline-creepy phrase I've seen in this section. Nice underwear, no clothes, and now asking me to take of my pants...
Why we cannot say it pant coz it is broek not broeken. Why it translated as no pants please. And not like "No no pant please" can anybody tell me
Alsjeblieft is informal while alstublieft is formal.
So if you use "u", "menner", "mevrouw" etc then you go with alstublieft. If you use je/jij then it is accompanied by alsjeblieft. It's also easy to remember as respective forms are parts of those words (for a reason ;-) ).
is it fine if I translate " No, no pant please." If it is wrong, please explain me.
No it is not, because in English, the correct form for 'broek' is 'pants' or 'trousers' when you want to refer to the whole clothing item. This doesn't happen in Dutch, where 'broeken' stands for 2 or more individual pieces of clothing, and 'broek' for just one. If you use 'pant', then you refer to one half of it.
Then I suppose in Dutch we need to have broeken only instead of having broek and broeken. Where can we forward our humble request to the Dutch language responsible institution for consideration, if at all there is any?.Any leads please?
Yeah... Or... We have to finally accept that the languages differ and those differences pose one of the reasons why learning them is so exciting.
So, how exactly do you pronounce broek now? In the introduction it sounded like d oek. Here it sounds more like book...?