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! ;-)
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.
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/ ?
"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.
"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 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.
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.