"They are not yours."
Translation:Zij zijn niet van jou.
I don't think so, it sounds wrong to me. I think that "de jouwe/mijne/zijne/etc" doesn't work for plurals. Perhaps one of the contributors can confirm this.
I'm not a native speaker or a contributer, but I believe you're correct in saying that it doesn't work for plurals. I have yet to find a source saying it doesn't work, but I also have yet to find a single instance where it does work.
In this comment, I'm talking about the singular you:
jouw = your (ex. That is your cheese.)
de/het jouwe = yours (ex. That is yours.)
jou = you (when used as an object, ex. I see you.)
van jou = of you, a.k.a. yours
What about jullie? These jou/jouw/jouwe/jullie are confusing me like ihr in german
@weirdones: "niet" is used whenever there is no indefinite article, whereas "geen" is used when there is one. Some examples:
- "Zij zijn niet van jou." vs. "Zij zijn van jou."
- "Er is geen hond." vs. "Er is een hond."
- "Dat is niet de hond." vs. "Dat is de hond."
In the first and third examples, "niet" is used because there would be no indefinite article, but in the second example "geen" is used because there would be an indefinite article.
@lyds1177: That is a good way to look at it! However, "not" still can be used with "geen."
"Ik heb geen hond gezien." = "I have not seen a dog."
Hope this clears things up, guys!
EDIT: Looking back on what I wrote, I would like to clarify something. "geen" is used if there is no definite article if there is a noun. If there is no noun "niet" will always be used. So if there is a noun and there is no article at all, "geen" will be used.
As best I can tell, niet is more like 'not' and geen is more like 'no' (as in "I eat no meat"). It's a subtle difference, and I'm not entirely sure, but it's worked so far.
Why can I not use "het zijn..." here. I could in another sentence that began with "they are.."
Why is not possible "Het zijn niet van jullie"? Ze zijn... is the only alternative?