1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "De schilderijen uit de Neder…

"De schilderijen uit de Nederlandse Gouden Eeuw worden getoond in veel musea."

Translation:The paintings from the Dutch Golden Age are shown in many museums.

October 30, 2014



I translated it as "of" the Dutch Golden Age - which was marked wrong. Should I have put in an acceptance request, or was I being too free with my translation? It's obviously not the literal translation of: "out", so is there a reason to prefer "from" over "of"? I'm studying art history, and although that doesn't make me an authority, I think I'm far more likely to discuss the paintings OF a certain era - not from it.


I think 'of' could also be used here, but for clarity I'd tend to use 'from', as in some cases the era itself could be the subject of a painting/artwork, e.g. 'a painting from WWII' (painted during the war) versus 'a painting of WWII' (a painting that in some way depicts the war).


'of' is now accepted


Could this also mean "the paintings from the Dutch Golden Age are BEING shown in many museums"?


Yes, more or less. "Are being shown" means more specifically that they are on display in those museums right now." "Are shown" can mean only that many museums sometimes show them - not necessarily right now.

[Native US English speaker.]


It was marked correct for me so I'd assume yes.


I had the idea that "musea" a plural form of "museum"...


In Dutch the words that end in "um" in singular end in "a" in plural. For example datum = data


Do you mean in Dutch, or in English? In Dutch, yes, that is true. However, in English, it's "museums". Some English words imported directly from Latin can form their plurals the Latin way, so curriculum->curricula OR curriculums. But you can't do it with all of them, and "museum" isn't one of them.


I meant in english. I speak in english as a main everyday language and usually say "musea" without being corrected (many of my friends are english majors). Also this is given as a plural form in Wikitionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/museum


I think your friends are just being polite :)


I've never, ever heard a native English person use "musea" before - if they did, it would strike me as (at least) very eccentric! Or perhaps they might be joking, or wanting to show off that they know some Latin. It sounds as if it should be acceptable, but it's just not right.


I am probably that eccentric English man! I love these irregular plurals in English and I never trust a politician who talks about referendums! It has to be referenda.


You are right of course, I don't pretend it's right to say "Musea" in English.


Referendums/referenda is debateable. I'm inclined towards: "referendums", which seems to be the prevailing usage. (I hope we never get to the plural anyway, as one was bad enough, whichever side you were on!) But please tell me you don't say: "musea" and try to convince others it's right! ;)


I still prefer concerti to concertos.


That's curious. I've never encountered "musea" as the plural in English - and I'm a former English major, an editor, and old. I'd recommend consulting the Merriam Webster dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary. They're more widely regarded as authoritative than is Wiktionary.


Funny, but when I check "museum" in the Merriam Webster dictionary they don't mention any plurals. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/museum Same goes for the Oxford Dictionaries. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/museum So why not believe the only instance that mentions it? ;-)


And you'll find the same thing for other nouns that do not have irregular plurals.

Because most plurals in English are simply formed by adding "s" or "es," these English-language dictionaries only specifically mention the plural when it's irregular.


Not true. Se as stadium, stadia is the correct plural but stadiums (and museums) are conventionally acceptable.


Does era work to translate eeuw?

  • 1721

No, it doesn't accept "era" though I can't understand why not. They may or may not have a specific word for "era" but doesn't eeuw literally mean "century"? An "age" and an "era" can be used almost interchangeably in English and the listener will know precisely what you are speaking about... saying the "Golden Era" should be accepted... it just isn't.


You are correct in that age and era often mean the same thing. However, in this case the term in English is the Golden Age. Let me give you an example: state and canton often mean the same (and, in the other direction, state and country): however, no one would translate the United Cantons of America or the United Countries of America.

  • 1721

A valid point, however I would add that the analogy falls a bit short. era and age can almost always be interchanged... The Victorian Era, the Victorian Age... few but the pickiest would argue the point. That said, a canton is used more as a district or area and not at all in the same as people of the United States refer to their "states". Now if you (or anyone else) as an outsider asked me which canton I lived in, I might say: "The state of Texas" or "The state of New York". There is a similarity certainly in canton and state... but the two are hardly as interchangeable as era and age. "There is something rotten in the state of Denmark" could hardly become "There is something rotten in the canton of Denmark"... undoubtedly because those contexts are pretty much etched in stone. Like I said... valid point and some would indeed point to the Golden Age as not the same as a Golden Era... thanks for taking the time to respond.


For native English speakers, can we say something is "being exhibited" or not? I feel it strange but I am not sure.


Yes. That is very common.


'Exhibited' is good, after all, an exhibition is a tentoonstelling.


Why does "Eeuw" change its meaning, from "century" to "age", in this context?


The often used term Gouden Eeuw translates as the (Dutch and/or Flemish) Golden Age (of the 17th century), but otherwise eeuw does indeen mean century, unless speaking about prehistoric times (Golden Age, Silver Age, Iron Age), as in Ovid's Metamorphoses.


I think it's 'century' in a kind of figurative sense: "Golden Age" or "Golden Era" might be about a hundred years but the literal exactness isn't critical to the idea.


"Being exhibited" is perfectly Fine to this native speaker and teacher.


Could 'van' be used instead of 'uit' in this sentence? :)


in and at is basically the same, right?


Sometimes, but not always. You can be at a place (for instance, standing outside the door) without being in it.


I did 'out of' and it said that I was wrong.


"Out of" isn't a natural English way of saying it. Dutch "uit" could sometimes correspond to English "out of" (I'm sorry, I can't think of an example), but it doesn't work here. We would use: "from", or possibly: "of" (which isn't accepted either - see my very first comment, above), but definitely not: "out of".


Could "Nederlandse" also be interpreted as "the Netherlands' "?


No, because the adjective meaning: "from or pertaining to the Netherlands" is: "Dutch". Especially for a set phrase such as this. You wouldn't say: "France's Revolution" instead of: "The French Revolution". So with the Dutch Golden Age.


Apart from what Tina_in_Bristol said, the Dutch Golden Age doesn't exclusively refer to the Netherlands. It was a period in history were Amsterdam was a flourishing city (and with that the rest of the Netherlands) after it took that role from Antwerp in Belgium. A lot of painters and artists from Flanders moved to the Netherlands to take profit of that flourishing period, because Flanders was undergoing a lot of crises. So the Dutch Golden Age refers to "de Nederlandse kunst" (literally the lowlands, not the country), but is called Dutch because it happened in the Netherlands.


I saw "getoond" and thought that meant they were shown in the past. Little confused :\


Yeah I thought the same thing.


Why not vele musea?


why is netherlands' golden age wrong?


Firstly, in English-speaking countries, the "Dutch Golden Age" is the name of a specific geographical and historical era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Golden_Age

That is its proper name, so you can't just substitute something else.

Secondly, grammatically speaking, the adjective meaning: "of or pertaining to the Netherlands" is irregular, and is simply: "Dutch".

It's not possessive ("Netherlands'") or, even worse: "Netherlandish".


Thanks. My issue is that Dutch is an exonym and we are very inconsistent when using these things. For example we use 'fin de siecle' perhaps when being pretentious. I may just refer to it as the proper noun as I would with any other. Of course the irony is that this is a Dutch course!

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