1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Do you have pants?"

"Do you have pants?"

Translation:Hebben jullie broeken?

July 20, 2014



My dutch wife says the singular, heb jij broek? is fine too. The English sentence has 4 possible translations, as you can be singular or plural, and trousers can be singular or plural.


That is grammatically not correct, plus I never heard anyone saying it.


But heb je broeken should be right


It's probably worth using the word trousers rather than pants here as that means underpants in uk


It's an English (US) - Dutch course, so we're using the US spelling and common words as preferred translation. We try to accept spelling and alternative translations of the other standard English forms (UK, IE, CA, AU, NZ, ZA) as well, but it's possible that alternatives are missing in the accepted answers, because they are not added yet or we don't know them (we only have US and UK native speakers in the team). That's why we're depending on users to use the report a problem button during lessons to report errors and missing alternative translations.


I keep hearing this from various sources but I've never heard an English person refer to their underwear as pants abd I certainly don't do it. I call them boxers, briefs, boxer briefs and underwear.


Why not "heeft jij broeken"?


The verb is wrongly conjugated. It should be "Heb jij/je" in this case, because the pronoun comes after the verb.


I had this question as a "select all that are correct". I had the option of "Hebben jullie broeken" and "hebben jullie broek" and some other one that was definitely wrong. I was under the impression that pants could imply both a pair of pants (broek) AND multiple pairs of pants (broeken). And so I selected both and got it wrong. Am I wrong in thinking this?


I think it's because "Hebben jullie broek?" should actually be "Hebben jullie een broek?" to mean "Do you have pants (singular)?" So it's wrong because it's gramatically incorrect.


ah. that actually now makes perfect sense thanks!


Why can't it be "heb jij broeken?"


It's ambiguous when you need to translate from English to dutch. The example stated, you have no pants. It could mean two things. The person is wearing no pants at the moment, or has no pants at all in their possession. But in English, pants is both plural and singular. Like sheep. One sheep two sheep. One pants two pants. I posted an error request.


Well, actually in English the translation for the singular form, broek, would be a pair of pants/trousers, just like we say a pair of scissors and never 'a scissors', which is completely ungrammatical.

Hope this helps.


I can't see why my answer of "Heeft je broeken?" is incorrect when the supplied answer is "Heeft u broeken?" Isn't "je" just the informal version of "u" ??

  • 39

Yes, but "heeft" is used for "u", "hij", "zij" and "het", but "je" and "jij" use "hebt" (which can also be used for "u" actually). So:

  • Je/Jij hebt
  • U hebt/heeft
  • Hij/Zij/Het heeft

However, if the verb is placed in front of the pronoun, something happens to the verb with "jij" or "je":

  • Heb jij/je
  • Hebt/Heeft u
  • Heeft hij/zij/het


Perfect. Thank you.


'jullie' is used to refer to a group whereas 'je' is used to refer to just one person... how do we know which it is here?

i translated to dutch from english where the phrase was 'do you have pants?'


There is no context, so you cannot know, that's why all possible correct translations are accepted.


Why not "heb jij broek ?"

  • 39

"Broek" is singular and needs an article.


Would "heb je een broek?" be correct? Because my answer was "heb je de broek?" and that was incorrect.

  • 39

Yes, the first one is correct. The second one means "Do you have the [pair of] pants?".


If you want to specify its the plural "you" in Dutch, using "You all" in English would be a better substitute than just "you."

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