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.


Very much false. Dogs are dichromats and perceive a smaller variety of colors than trichromats such as humans, but then humans perceive a smaller variety of colors than tetrachromats, such as pigeons, doves, and many other animals. Saying that dogs are colorblind (human perspective) is the same as saying that humans are colorblind (tetrachromat perspective).


Colour blindness is a term which is incorrectly applied in the vast majority of cases. True monochromacy is very rare. Other colour perception problems should be described anomalous colour perception.


And what, humans set the default? ;D


The sentence is about “De hond”, de can be used to refer to a whole species but it’s used more often to refer to a specific dog, so it could be referring to a dog that actually can’t see colours :)


So you know the dog duo is mentioning??

It says the dog, not dogs


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 :'(


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


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


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.


I dont know where you get this from. Kan in combination with zien is very common in dutch. I would say that in some cases it is actually the english that leaves the can out where dutch wóuld use it.

And "zien" shouldn't be a correct translation for "can see". To be able to see and to see are different things.

There are situations where both might work to convey the same thing. But can you see=kan je zien And to see=zien.

But again dutch definitely doesn't use kan less often than english. English often uses do instead of can.


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."


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!


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


No - colour can be a mass noun, so colour is also correct and in my opinion better than colours for this translation.

People are always quick to point out mass nouns are also treated differently in Dutch, see the confusion on the undergoed, bril en broek questions.

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