"Her children eat breakfast."
Translation:Hennes barn äter frukost.
So "Hennes barn äter frukost" same for "Her children eat breakfast" and "Her child eats breakfast" ?
Yup, with hennes you can't tell if it's one child or more, because hennes doesn't change.
With some other pronouns such as mitt/mina, you can tell.
I think I know now: Because there is no "she" subject to which "sina" would refer to.
Could a native speaker confirm this? It does make sense, but it would still be nice to know for sure...
Hennes is possesiv: "Her children". Henne is the object form of hon: "I like her."
To be more specific, it's because we never use the definite form after the genitive. They don't in English either – you don't say her the child or Mary's the child [to say it is the child of Mary].
24 July 2018 - I read all the comments, but I am still puzzled why "barn" is used here instead of the plural form "barnen", given that the sentence we are being asked to translate clearly uses the plural form "children" and not "child. Could someone please clarify? Thank you in anticipation.
Okay, so basically "barn" means both singular child and plural children. Only when you wanna say THE child or THE children, you use barnet (singular) or barnen (plural). This case is tricky, because it's not a random child or random children, but "her children". However, you still only use the normal "barn" form, because as explained above, it's not "Her the child/children", but only "her child/children".
"Barnen" is not the plural of "barn", but the plural of "barnet" - the definitive forms. Which, as explained by Arnauti, are not used in this kind of sentence.
Hope that helped? :)
Thank you so much for your prompt reply. I get it now; "barn" is invariable in number, and I expect in gender too. I got confused by the fact that "barn" is an ett word, which I do know means "a" and had a block and did not relate the suffix "en" to "the". Instead I mistook "barnen" for the plural, not realising that the singular and the plural were both "barn". I was not as sophisticated as mistaking it for a possessive, as in Italian. Please accept a Lingot. Thank you once again.
Within context, is there ANY way this sentence could grammatically correctly start with "Sina barn"? Let's say there is a longer story that revolves only about one woman... could I THEN start a sentence with "sina barn"? Or is sin/sitt/sina really only used when referring to the subject of that very sentence? It doesn't use the context of the text around it?