"The mouse is wearing pants."
Translation:De muis draagt een broek.
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"?
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)
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.
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?