1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "The mouse is wearing pants."

"The mouse is wearing pants."

Translation:De muis draagt een broek.

December 2, 2014



Is broeken plural in this sentence because the mouse has 4 legs and is wearing two pair? :)


It could be Mickey Mouse and have only one pair.


De muis draagt 1 broek.

But in english pants is always in plural form like glasses. While in dutch it is singular. Broek en bril. (The r in bril is important!! 😉 )


translated word for word this comes out "the mouse is wearing a pant." In English there is no singular, its always "pants" or a "pair of pants". I understand this is just how people use the words, but it makes me curious as to how the Dutch use "a pant" versus "pants"? "Een broek" versus "broeken." Is broeken always the equivalent of "several pairs of pants"?


"een broek" = "a pair of pants", abbreviated to just "pants", which is also the word for the plural. "broeken" = "(pairs of) pants".


Again not enough practice before


Well first you would have to specify what you mean by pant.

English oddly uses the plural for a single garment (yes I know the etymology). In dutch it us just one item like any other item.
So broek is one of them broeken is more if them. No different from boek and boeken.

Did you mean trouser leg?

We call that broekspijp. (And yes pipe is a cognate of pijp)


Why is 'De muis draagt broek' wrong?


"Broek" is singulier so you need "een".


What is the "een" in this contest?


Een is required because broek is a singular noun. Just like you'd say "Hij draagt een hemd" or "Ze draagt een hoed", you need een here to act as an article. It's just that in English "pants" is always plural, while in Dutch this is not the case.


Een is the Dutch indefinite article like the English a or an.


What is the difference between broeken and ondergoed?


'onder' is under, and 'goed' is good then ondergoed is probably the same as underwear. And while "muisen dragen een broek" I don't think "muisen dragen ondergoed". Just guessing because I'm not an expert.


In UK English pants = underwear, broek/broeken = trousers, so it is even more complicated!


Goed is good but is also ware (s).

So underwear is the literal translation of ondergoed.

Ah as in goods! Man I hurt my brain trying the think of the cognate but nothing came up, so I thought ok.. Maybe there is none or perhaps a very obscure one (or a known german or French term) so I checked wiktionary. .. man how could I not come up with goods haha

And I realize me overlooking wears and wares now too.. I need a break I guess.

Besides goed, dutch also has waar, meaning wears btw.


The De is not working for button pushing


Mickey Mouse club house


Kind of confusing because pants is no the same in British/American English. Also, because in English is "pants" in plural


Must be Jerry fron Tom and Jerry :D


Is the r in broek silent? Or is it just me?


So... the specific question I have is why the article "een" is needed for any reason in this sentence. The article is not needed (nor was it provided in the English sentence here) in English. In fact, it would be incredibly awkward to use it.

And why do the above comments seem to indicate that no article would be used with "broeken"?


Well that is the normal rule for both languages. But in this case english has a plural noun for a singular thing. If you would replace with another noun you would see why the een is needed.

She has books
She has a book

Ze heeft boeken
Ze heeft een boek

You see why the een is needed?


Why 'een' here? In english, the following are distinct: 'I wear a shirt' and 'I wear shirts'. Doesn't dutch have this distinction?


That is exactly what it is. Just in dutch we don't use plurals for a single item. We keep the plurals for the plurals ;)

See my reply to the comment above yours.

(The better question to ask yourself is; why is it "a shirt" but not "a pant" ;) )


Mickey Mouse is that you?


It is correct, but it tells me i am wrong

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