It sure is redundant, but needed in many cases where the definite noun has a preceding adjective. Swedish (and Norwegian) uses this double definite a lot.
"them pink pants are his", huh? (some variants of american english use this construction as well)
It's the same in singular den röda bilen is 'the red car', so it's really an article here, not the pronoun meaning they.
But why is it "de" and not "det" or "den"? Isn't "de" supposed to be "they"?
It also means "the" for plural words when the double definite is required.
When we should make the double definite ? And how can i make En vit Definite? :(
Is it necessary to use the definite form instead of just "de rosa byxor"? Is this common in Swedish when using the definite form and an adjective - cf. Danish, where it would be something like "de lyserøde bukser" and not "de lyserøde bukserne"?
Yes, it's necessary. Except before a relative clause, in that case it should be indefinite: Jag har köpt de rosa byxor som han har på sig 'I have bought the pink pants that he is wearing'.
The Swedish pronunciation of pink is false, its not rosa, its "råsa". The spelling is rosa though.
Exactly! There is also a Swedish verb "rosa" (same spelling, different pronunciation), which means commend / belaud. It sounds like the TTS pronounces that word instead.
THANK YOU for putting 'trousers' as an option now! (I know it was already accepted as a typing answer, but I don't think I'd ever seen it as a 'card' / button before!)
Why don't we say Det rosa byxorna? I saw in some other questions that "det" can also mean "they" and used when introducing an object?