this is about as yellow as horses get when they aren't photoshopped:
So does yellow encompass 'blonde' shades as it might in some languages (thus making this a real-world sentence, maybe referring to a palamino) or is it comedy nonsense like a purple horse? If the latter, it isn't very helpful as the former is possible and as beginners, we don't know!
Hey, I have something to share:
You are serious, which is totally good. But please remember there are tons of funny or even absurd sentences in DL's database (perhaps a half of it come from Rémy, kidding). In my opinion, ridiculousness keeps learners being focus, therefore helps a little more in remembering. As you wandered "Is it valid to tell a horse yellow?", you have probably carved "geel" in your mind. Sounds good?
There can be a yellow horse indeed, just imagine a cute yellow horse toy for babies. :)
I do not know whether it is recommended to say "een geel paard" in Dutch, nevertheless I do know it is quite natural to say "a yellow horse" in Chinese at least. There is even a specific character 驃 to name a yellow horse. You can check this page of Kangxi Dictionary. It is the bigger character at the middle bottom, which means "a yellow horse", or "a yellow horse with some white hair", or "a yellow horse with a white tail and white hair around its neck". What I want to say is "een geel paard" does not sound strange to me. So I think "een geel paard" may sound unreal to you just because you are more familiar with "a blonde horse". (Correct me please if I mess it up.)
Thanks for your doubt, I have already know "geel" very well, so a ligot and upvote. :)
Enjoy the ridiculousness. :)
Ridiculousness is not always OK from an educational point of view. The problem here is that we cannot know whether this is a silly sentence or an unremarkable one. We need to know whether this means Palamino or a daffodil-coloured plastic toy so that we know whether we would talk about having 'geel' hair for someone who is blonde or whether that would suggest you have dyed your hair to an unnatural shade. If it is a silly sentence and we have no way of knowing, it is misdirection rather than promoting learning. Silly sentences are fine once you have taught meaning, as long as they are transparent.
Thanks for your reply.
I am not a native English speaker, so I may be wrong. I think blond IS a yellowish color. The distinction is important, I know, but imagine a non-native speaker saying this, he will possibly be corrected, rather than confuse the whole conversation.
Well, let me make my suggestion (which have been implied at 2 3 of my post before) more clear: always try to believe what they try to teach you until a native speaker told it is not the case, or an alternative with equal acceptance exits. By "a native speaker", I mean whose mother tougue is exactly the dialect you are learning.
I introduced an example in Chinese to show that "not everything sounds weird according to language A is weired in language B". (You can definitely doubt this.)
So for me, also a learner of Dutch via DL, I will continue believing what it is trying to teach me here (since it is not an obviously silly sentence, just as you have mentioned) is a standard or at least an understandable expression until a native speaker makes a further clarification. Further, because it is not a 100% save expression, that is, by such a expression, what the speaker want to deliver may not be received EXACTLY by a native speaker. But I am aware that a quite similar issue occurs between UK-ENG and AME-ENG. It will raise another huge debate about mutual understanding between dialects, or even between individuals. I stop here since it is a debate on linguistics, or epistemology, but we are just learning another language.
So, could any native speaker can answer us whether "een geel paard" can be used to referring a palomino horse, or can only refer to a horse toy which is yellow?
Enjoy and good luck!
[Edit:] I have just realized that palomino is just the same as 驃, hurray!
My native language is English, and I can tell you that to call a palomino horse yellow is very common, and are hardly ever called blond, unless they are very light shades of palomino. But there are types of horses that are referred to as blond or cremello (cream-colored, usually Akhal Tekes). Sometimes even very light chesnut horses are called yellow, or flaxen. You can look up these horses/colors of horses if you are not familiar with them.
Until you know more about yellow vs blond in Dutch, do not feel silly calling a palomino horse a "geel paard". It's not ridiculous to do so.
I hear what you say, but perhaps we should take these humorous diversions in our stride. We accommodate different speech patterns and usages in English very well, it seems to me. If an American says "He is dumb" I hear He is stupid. If an English person says "He is dumb" I hear He is unable to speak. We cope.
The rule itself is actually really easy! And that's coming from a native English speaker.
Whenever you learn a new vocabulary word, always learn it paired with its definite article. e.g. learn brood as het brood, and learn jas as de jas, as you would do in Spanish and many other languages with gendered nouns.
The rule is that if the noun has an het or de in front of it, or if the noun is plural, always use the -e form of the adjective; and if it has an een or no article at all, use the -e form for de-nouns.
You would inflect lang like so:
De lange man
Het lange meisje
De lange mannen
Het lange meisjes
Een lange man
Een lang meisje
Simply put, always the -e form unless your adjective is describing a single, indefinite, neuter noun.
And it should go without saying that predicate adjectives are always without an -e:
De huis is rood.