1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Hebben jullie dorst?"

"Hebben jullie dorst?"

Translation:Are you thirsty?

July 18, 2014



"Are you all thirsty?" should probably also be accepted.


Are y'all thirsty is already accepted haha. I guess some of the moderators speak American English


Really? That's hilarious. I love all these jokes they hide in duolingo.


Why should it? It is not a direct truth of what was asked, which was simply 'Are you (plural) thirsty?', not 'Are you all thirsty'....


"Y'all" (southern), "you all" (some parts of the Midwest), "you guys" (western), "yous guys" (some parts of the east coast), and a few others I can't think of right now, are all American colloquial methods of expressing a second person plural. While you are correct in that "you" is the technical and universally accepted way of expressing a second person plural in English, the American forms, though not universally accepted, should also be accepted here, as they are expressing the correct thing. In a way, American English is more advanced in this case, as the second person plural is being expressed in a way that is common to most western languages.


"Deze pretzels geeft me dorst." -- Kramer


"Have you thirst" makes perfect sense to me in English but it was not accepted. I prefer to use very literal translations to help internalize Dutch word order and choice.


that isn't accepted in English, sorry.


Is English your first language?


English is my first language, I can say that although I would probably get what you were trying to say it isn't the correct way to ask someone. "Are you thirsty?" or "Would you like something to drink?" work best.


Is jullie the plural of you


Yep. Like "you guys" in english.


It's y'all in American English.


That's more of the Southern US dialect. Once you get past the Mason-Dixon line, you'll hear more people say "you" (plural implied) or "you all" instead of "y'all".


why is it hebben rather than zijn ? literally this translates as have you thirst, right ?


Maybe I'm missing your question. You're right, "Hebben jullie dorst?" translates literally as "have you thirst?" which is how one asks "Are you thirsty" in dutch (and spanish and probably others). So asking "Zijn jullie dorst?" would be using the wrong verb (although correctly conjugated!). But I'm a beginner at dutch, so take this with a grain of salt!


Either ‘Hebben jullie dorst?’ (literally ‘Have you thirst?’) or ‘Zijn jullie dorstig?’ (literally ‘Are you thirsty?’). But the first of these is the common way to say it in Dutch (even though the second is the common way to say it in English).


why is it "hebben jullie dorst" rather than "jullie hebben dorst"?


It's a question, so the verb hebben and subject jullie are switched.


Hebben is have. Why it is translated as are?


In Dutch you can't BE thirsty, instead you HAVE thirst.


Sorry, but the fact that it takes "Are y'all thirsty?" but not "Are you all thirsty?" is silly, it seems important to distinguish "jullie" from "je" and that this is not the best way to do it!!

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