1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "De hond ziet geen kleuren."

"De hond ziet geen kleuren."

Translation:The dog sees no colors.

July 22, 2014



Gaaah, this is false! >.< :P


This says "THE dog," maybe it is talking about once specific dog who, through birth or some kind of accident, is actually fully colorblind.


Yes! Most dogs are just color blind. That is not the same as not being able to see any colors.


The correct spelling of "colors" if you're not an American is "colours". Fix this please.


both is right. colors and colours both will be good


It's true. The word is the same although British and American differ.


I know, right? I'm Australian and keep forgetting to do the American spelling and getting sanctioned for it :'(


Hi, nikkesen. I read they're using American English instead British. Why? I don't know. Do I like? No. But so is, and we have to respect it. Anyway, great job, Duo Team! I'm a Spanish native speaker and I'm using my Duo app with its interface in English and learning Dutch. So I can take advantage of both language. Thanks for everything! ;-)


I actually like the American spelling because it is easier to remember and most coding languages use 'color' not 'colour'.


"colours" is accepted as an answer so it's been fixed


The Romans spelled it "color" long before the French, or the English spelled it "colour," so just this once, maybe Americans aren't to blame?


The whole of the English speaking world spells it colour except Americans. Their Canadian neighbours spell it with a U.


I guess they should've came up with Duo first then.


Hwat is rong with American speling? It's not hard on the ey at al :Þ Sorry, Americans. Just a bit of playful teasing.


It's actually easier because you don't have to remember as many extra letters and because the words we write with a "z" sound like that when you say them aloud.

But seriously, if Duolingo isn't accepting the UK spelling, you should hit "Report a problem" for that, because it should accept both.


To be fair, you learn to spell things the way you learn them so 'remembering ... extra letters' only comes into it when you're learning foreign spelling.

And I do do that yes.


Considering that English is notoriously not phonetic in its spelling, any additional letters and extra complications just make the problem that is English spelling worse, IMO. ;-) But anyway, good that you reported the problem here, because whatever I may think about which spelling is more efficient, both are correct.


Well, given that it's not phonetic either way I'm not sure what difference it makes. It should be something like 'culuh' or 'culur' anyway, depending on the rhoticity of your accent.

How does 'canceled' work as a spelling while we're on the subject, given the concept of long and short vowels? Wouldn't that make it /'kænsiɫ̪d/ ?


Why not the dog sees no color? Is the Dutch kleur also the uncountable plural? (as this movie is in color, not black and white).


in this case, it is kleuren, which is colours, not colour. if it was kleur, it would be colour, but because of the dutch being the plural, then colours is the answer they want.


Did it mark you wrong on that? Duolingo teaches American English, but British English should also be accepted in all excercises.


Color vs. Colour =/= American vs. British. Canadians, Australians, South Africans, Jamaicans, Nigerians, Indians etc. all use ColoUr. The Color vs. Colour debate is America vs. the rest of the English speaking world


Yeah, but they don't count for Americans, so its really "color" vs. wierd-foreign spelling.


The translation of kleuren is 'colors' but it seems wrong. 'The dog sees no colors' bring the question of which colors it does not see. It would be more exact to say: 'the dog sees no color'.


but that'd be a wrong translation


I agree with Fabiocicm. Although '...colours.' might be the correct translation of 'kleuren', but in the context of the translated sentence 'colour ' is the correct translation -- my considered opinion.


I wrote "the dog can not see colours" and I was told "can not" was incorrect for not being "cannot" and "colours" was incorrect for not being "colors"

This needs to be fixed.


that'd be "Kan geen kleuren zien" "cannot see colours/Is incapable of seeing colours"


I don't think the problem is on the "can not" not being "cannot". The sentence dictates about not seeing any color, not about unability to see it.


"can see" is generally accepted as a translation of "ziet" in the course (also true for "hoort")

Presumably this is because Dutch and English make different choices about when to use the modal can/kan with these verbs, and "kan" is relatively less common when the matter at hand is inability to see/hear something than "can" would be in English.


Literally, can not see colours means that he is capable of failing to see the colours, not that he is incapable of seeing them.


Only "colours" should be reported as a problem. Although some people unfortunately are beginning to use "can not" as two words, it is wrong, and should be "cannot."


Cannot is always one word


It may also be separate.


I wrote, "the dog does not see color." I know it's not a direct translation, but is my answer not correct?


Your answer should be correct, just make sure you use the plural "colors" and not just "color".


My anwer was "The dog does not see colors" and it was incorrect. How am I supposed to know if geen means don't or can't


I can imagine myself mangling this when speaking and accidentally telling everyone that the dog can't see clothes. Nothing like a dog with x-ray vision to start conversation!


"The dog sees no colours" and "The dog does not see colours" are different sentences. I think "geen" modifies the previous word, so the translation should be corrected to the latter sentence. The distinction seems unimportant here, but the implications in other contexts could be quite severe.


I heard "kleren", and imagined dogs seeing through clothes.


This is another example of poor translation on this course. The dog can't see colours / the dog is colourblind are better. English people would never say the translation given unless they were struggling to translate a foreign language...


The hell...hond is pronounced "moolt"?


I think we can have "The dog sees no colours." can we not? rather than writing, " The dog does not see any colours." I have always been unclear about this. In French one might write, "Le chien voit rien de couleurs." Of course, I might have made a mistake. In French I do not think one would write, " Le chien ne voit pas de coleurs." My French is a little rusty.


"The hound sees no colors" should be correct as well (although I freely admit dog is more common and my brain saw hond as hound, ha).


Considering my user name I probably should be able to answer this question myself, but aren't "hounds" special kinds/breeds of dogs? Every hound is a dog, but not every dog is a hound (I suppose). Whereas hond is the general word for a dog.


I live in the southern United States, and its not uncommon for people to just say hound referring to any dog -similar to calling it a pooch. It's not good for translating though.


Among English-speaking dog enthusiasts, a hound is a class of dogs, which can be further divided up into the manner in which they hunt/track. They vary very widely, so while you might be able to pick up on some general types, there's no way to tell definitively whether a dog is a hound or not unless you really know your dog breeds.

Regionally - as for instance in the American South - a "hound" may just mean any dog, and even in the broader language, we refer to a "faithful hound," regardless of breed. I get why DuoLingo seems to want to stick with "dog" since it's the general English term, and I suppose "hond" is the general term in Dutch: they want to deter you from equating hond and hound, which would be easy to do when they have the same linguistic root, and you're looking for a memory shortcut.

But it's not that "hound" is incorrect--it just could be misleading depending on your definition of it. E.g., if you were an English dog enthusiast trying to talk to a Dutch dog enthusiast, the distinction would matter, and you might have a frustrating conversation because you interpreted the word more narrowly than was warranted.


Is it right that 'dog' used to be the specific term and 'hound' the general but they've switched now?

On the subject of dog enthusiastics, I heard about a Dutchwoman (possibly urban legend) who, when asked about her profession, didn't know the relevant English verb in the sentence 'I breed dogs.' so went for the closest-sounding English word. For those still at a loss, the Dutch for 'I breed' is Ik fok.


You are absolutely right. The same discussion was in the German Duolingo.


Actually scientists say that dogs only see in black and white...


In English we would say 'the dog is colour blind'.


the dog is colour blind, that is correct but marked wrong.


Yeah... "The canis lupus familiaris suffers from achromatopsia" should be accepted, too.


Sorry mate I thought this was common language. Colour blind is not a technical term it is used in common English.


"The dog is colour blind" may be what the sentence means, but it is not what it says. It might be a correct interpretation, but it is not a correct translation.


Actually, this is true. Dogs see in black and white.


No it isn't. Our eyes can see on the red, blue, green scale. Dogs see on a blue and yellow scale and may see some shades on violet, but that's still being discussed

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