"Il y a des poils de chien partout dans la maison."

Translation:There is dog hair everywhere in the house.

July 21, 2020

This discussion is locked.


"There is dog hair all over the house" sounds more natural and should be correct.


Or, more literally, "There are dog hairs all over the house."


Did you report it?


Don't remember but I think I did.


I did too. 3 December, 2020.


"there is dog hair throughout the house" was not accepted.


I agree.. It should have been


This english sentence is a very unnatural translation. I agree with others here. It would be more natural as 'there are dog hairs all over the house'


Absolutely agree!


My answer was "There is dog hair all over the house.", that should be excepted (ngl, kinda sad google translate was so unsuccessful)


"all over the house" was my answer as well and, of course, it is a perfectly good idiomatic and natural sounding translation in American English. "throughout" as well.


The duolingo translation is fine but so is "there are dog hairs all over the house" and it was marked wrong----I am a native English speaker and asked several people about this and they all said the same as me for first suggestion but agree that both are OK and utterly synonymous. They need a native English speaker at duolingo to avoid their many mistakes in fluent usage of English. In French everything is spelled out but not so in English and their translations are often ponderous and not natural.


'Dog hair' as a singular collective noun sounds unnatural here (UK) but it maybe moreusual in American English. 'Dog hair' would be more appropriate in a phrase such as 'dog hair is better than cat hair ...'.


Why not there are dog hairs all over the house, it's plural and is correct grammar


'There are dog hairs all over the house,' is better English.


There is dog hair all over the the house


There is dog hair all over the house--was rejected------ why?


why not dog's hair instead of dog hair


"dog hair" is a categorisation of the type of hair (a usage referred to as "noun as adjective")

"dog's hair" indicates ownership or attribution of the hair

This sentence needs the first form of words as the French poils de chien is using the French equivalent structure to the English "noun as adjective", not the French phraseology indicating ownership.


There's no real reason why not, but that's not how we would normally say it in English.

The dog's fur, yes; while it's still on the dog, it belongs to the dog. When it's on the carpet, it's just dog hair.


"There is dog hair throughout the house" is correct


An after thought is that in correct English I am not sure there is a word "hairs" but would be interested in some grammatical expert in English to comment. I think the singular and plural for hair is the same---similar to "sheep". The use of "dog hairs" is common usage in fluent English in the context here but may be grammatically incorrect.


'There are dog hairs all over the house' was not accepted. Reported.


en anglais nous dirions :"there are dog hairs all over the house"


I said "There is dog hair all over the house." This should have been accepted.


I have no problem with the Duo translation but, as is often the case, it is their rejection of other synonymous and fluent translations that is the problem. Examples are, "all over", "throughout", "dog hair" and "dog hairs" are all interchangeable in this sentence. Dog hair acts as a collective noun in this context and would be fine here as would the use of "dog hairs". To be singular you would need to say "a dog hair" or "one dog hair".


'There is dog's hair...' should be equally ok, I think. I'll report.

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