Duolingo is the most popular way to learn languages in the world. Best of all, it's 100% free!

"Laten we dansen."

Translation:Let's dance.

4 years ago

15 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/PilyMonsiv

yes David Bowie!

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/estrela190
estrela190
  • 12
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 9
  • 7
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 2

Doe je rote schoenen aan en dans de blues...

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Florence533289

Also a Dutch band called Blöf! :)

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/xMerrie
xMerrie
Mod
  • 25
  • 20
  • 18
  • 17
  • 11
  • 11
  • 11
  • 6

BLØF* ;)

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Florence533289

It made me want to listen to it again and as soon as did I realised...doh! :)

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/jackheywood
jackheywood
  • 16
  • 15
  • 12
  • 10
  • 9
  • 9
  • 8
  • 8
  • 8
  • 8
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 3
  • 2

Waarom is het 'we' en niet 'ons'?

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/estrela190
estrela190
  • 12
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 9
  • 7
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 2

Yeah! Laten we dansen! Doe je rote schoenen aan en dans de blues...

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/PilyMonsiv

roDe schoenen ;)

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/estrela190
estrela190
  • 12
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 9
  • 7
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 2

Bedankt!

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/mullac1992
mullac1992
  • 15
  • 10
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 2

Is there no difference between inclusive "Let's go" (you and me) and exclusive "Let us go" (me and them) in Dutch?

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/marcuslangford

There isn't in English, "let's" is a contraction of "let us" doesn't matter if it's two or two million.

I doubt there is a distinction in Dutch either.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/mullac1992
mullac1992
  • 15
  • 10
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 2

There is. "Let's" implies inclusivity, "Let us" implies exclusivity, outside of archaicisms

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/glossboss
glossboss
  • 19
  • 18
  • 18
  • 18
  • 16
  • 16
  • 15
  • 14
  • 14
  • 13
  • 13
  • 12
  • 12
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 6
  • 5

As a first-person plural imperative, "Let's" and "let us" are identical in meaning but different in register ("Let us" being more formal or solemn).

(To take an obvious example, when a priest says to the congregation "let us pray", he means himself and the churchgoers whom he is addressing, i.e. 'you and me' not 'me and them'.)

Of course, "let us" can also mean "permit me and some other person(s) to do something". I suspect this is what you are refering to. In Dutch this would be "laat ons (iets doen)"

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/mullac1992
mullac1992
  • 15
  • 10
  • 6
  • 5
  • 2
  • 2

What your priest says is an archaism. In modern English, saying "Let's go" implies that you are talking directly to someone ('let you and me go'), but "Let us go" implies pleading to a third party (let me and him/her/them go)

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/glossboss
glossboss
  • 19
  • 18
  • 18
  • 18
  • 16
  • 16
  • 15
  • 14
  • 14
  • 13
  • 13
  • 12
  • 12
  • 11
  • 11
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 6
  • 5

"Let us" as a first-person plural imperative is indeed an archaism. Just because a form is archaic doesn't mean that it isn't occasionally used where a very formal or solemn tone is desired. Even today you can find instances of academic texts written in stylized language and containing formulations such as "let us now consider/examine..."

By the way, I've had a further look into the "laten we" / "laat ons" distinction, and it seems that even "laat ons" can be used as a first-person plural imperative like "laten we", in formal contexts (& in Belgium): http://taaladvies.net/taal/advies/vraag/483/laat_ons_laten_we/

3 years ago