"Det är hundarnas vatten."

Translation:It is the dogs' water.

December 4, 2014

This discussion is locked.


Sir, step away from the bowl


( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Can we call this the lesson of missing apostrophes?


There's a bug concerning apostrophes. It's been reported to Duo but we have no idea when or if it will get fixed. It's correctly coded in the incubator so there's nothing more we as course contributors can do.


they still haven't fixed it.


I don't know how long ago you made this comment, but there's clearly still an issue with this...


I think the bug surfaced around 18 months ago and there appears to be no fix in sight. :|


Its already august 2019 and the bug still isn't fixed


November 2019 still not fixed. :(


I just got a typo for saying dogs'


Yes, please refer to the post to which you replied.


Still tells me dogs' is wrong....c'mon DL: get the apostophes sorted. They are more important than the achievement badges ( nice as those are!)


Why are you able to enter the answer manually? On my android app I have to choose blocks of words. Honestly, I'd prefer to enter the answer myself.


I assume it's a usability thing.. If you don't like it, raise it on Duo's general forums.


Yes, it's nothing we can affect at course level at all.


Och katten kan inte har det.


I understand what you mean, but only because I speak English. In Swedish, you would have to express that totally differently. I'd say Katten får inget or Katten får inte dricka av det, but there isn't one perfect counterpart to your English sentence, but several possible approximations.


So literally translated that would mean "the cat may not drink of it"? I looked it up in the dictionary and apparently the word is få and that får means 'sheep'. However seeing that få means to get or may or have or be allowed, it made more sense.


You may like this tongue twister: "Farfar, får får får? Nej, får får inte får, får får lamm."


what does that mean in English?


"Grandpa, do sheep get sheep? No, sheet don't get sheep, sheep get lambs."

That's "get" as in "beget". And get means "goat" in Swedish, by the way.


thank you devalanteriel for the translation:)


That is correct - får is the present tense.


Få is a verb that means to get, catch or receive.

English once had a cognate, in Old English 'fōn' (from Proto-Germanic fanhaną, where the nasal N before H collapsed in many Germanic languages, leaving fāną). It is related to the word 'fang'. When English lost its infinitive ending (-an, -en, -e), this 'fo' became extended based on its past tense forms to 'fang', and normalised as a weak verb ('fanged' in past tense and participle).

In Swedish and Norwegian, få is used more frequently as English uses 'get'.


And fånga means to catch in Swedish, from the same root.


Is it actually wrong to translate det with "this" instead of "that". My native language is German and we use "das" for both "this" and "that" (there are words to specify which one is meant, but mostly we just use "das") and "det" feels like its Swedish equivalent to me (so either that or this). But I keep getting wrong answers for using this instead of that in the translation.


In this course, this can correspond to det här/den här and detta/denna, and that can be den där/det där or den/det. This is a reasonable principle to stick with. In real life there may be some cases that are not so clear cut, but for the course, consistency is important.

I'm learning German too and I notice quite a lot of differences between our languages when it comes to determinacy/demonstratives. You don't use das hier or dies nearly as much as we use det här or detta.


I see, that makes sense. There are always these small differences between the different languages and if you translate something from Swedish to English to German it becomes pretty difficult to find out what a word means exactly. Thanks for explaining though. :)


Exactly what I just wanted to ask


English is decent but still can't figure out when to 's and when to s'

dog's dogs'

depending on who/or what the person/object is?


dogs' = belongs to several dogs (the ' comes after the plural s, no genitive s after a plural s)
dog's = belongs to one dog (no plural s, but genitive s)


The ' was missing in this one after the plural s in this one, too. What is stealing the 's! I have a screen shot as proof.


Are you using a Swedish keyboard with a Swedish spellchecker and not switching back to the English keyboard each time?


This is a problem on mobile platforms. It's been reported to Duo, but who knows when/if they will ever fix it.


hmm, got this wrong the first time. it suggested dogs', but when I typed dogs' the next time the answer had no apostrophe and it said that I had a typo. very confusing!


It's a bug. Please see the other comments on it in this threads.


atsf854, that is exactly the same experience I had, but it was their mistake.


Is "It is the dogs' water" is wrong? It said it is.


Which part of it was wrong? That would help greatly. As it stands, it's not wrong. It's in fact the default answer.


I think it's a bug


The grammatically correct answer is "It is the dogs' water," and DuoLingo said "Almost correct!" and then said it should be "It is the dogs water," which is absolutely NOT correct in English. (I've made my living as a copy editor in English.) DuoLingo then goes on to say "Another correct answer: It is the dogs' water." So, dogs' is correct, and in some small way DuoLingo knows it, even if it's not willing to admit it to us.


As has been stated in the thread, it's a bug.


not good in English with apostrophes anyways- so this sentence means it is multiple dogs water?correct? how would it also be written for just one dogs water?


Let me check my skills. I guess it's "Det är hundens vatten"


Let's see this:

Hund = dog Hunden = the dog Hundens = the dog's

Hundar = dogs Hundarna = the dogs Hundarnas = the dogs'

Writing this down so much reminds me of latin classes in high school when we trancribe verbs starting from "mensa!" Haha


Why are the r's NEVER articulated in swedish? It is so frustrating!


Because rn, rd, rs, rt, rl form special combination sounds called retroflex consonants. Search the forum for ”retroflex” or google it and you’ll find explanations.


Nobody would hold it against you if you did articulate them. It's just been softened the last centuries ;) Depending on dialect, the retroflex is stronger or weaker.


They are pronounced more often than they are in English.


(det är) means (this is) , but how to say (these are) ?


det är = it is (or, if you stress det, 'that is')
det här är = this is
detta är = this is
det där är = that is

For these are, we normally say Det här är. For instance: 'These are my shoes' = Det här är mina skor.


ok, here's a lame question but how do i differ from dog's or dogs'


You mean how do you you differentiate between them? dog's --> belonging to one dog; dogs' --> belonging to two or more dogs


Yeah, that's what I meant


"that's the dogs their water" should be right for as far as I know? is that a correct sentence in English? I'm from Belgium so not a native speaker of English.


No, that's not correct English at all. You've already said "the dogs'", so "their" is superfluous.

These are the correct answers:

"It is the dogs' water"

"It's the dogs' water"

"That is the dogs' water"

"That's the dogs' water"


ok, I see. in Dutch and even more in Flemish we do have something like that. Thank you very much! :)


Is it possible to use in English "dogs's"? If so, is there any difference between that and "dogs'"?


Shouldn't it be the dog's water, because there are several dogs?


dogs', yes, not dog's.


Thanks! Yeah of course dogs'. That's what I wanted to say. But duolingo told me: "almost correct" though I had written dogs'. I guess it's just a bug.


It is indeed. There are some other mentions of it in the thread as well.


Yes, it is a bug. The drop down had it correct, but my correct answer was "spelling error" and their correction was "dogs" (which is wrong). I had "dogs' " which is the correct form for plural possessive.


the apostrof has to go after dogs


It's a bug. Please refer to the many other comments on the same issue.


It told me I had a typo for using correct English punctuation of a possessive plural lol.


It's a bug. Please refer to the many other comments on the same issue.


Strange. When i press on "one" and pair it to "man" they pair. Very inacurate, "one" is "ett" in swedish. And "man" is suppose to be a "man" in english. (Excuse the bad grammar.)


Well, words can have multiple meanings. :) The Swedish man can mean both English "man" and the general "you", for which English can use either "you" or "one".

For instance:

  • One must not eat lava
  • Man får inte äta lava


It told me I was wrong to put 'dogs' water'11


It's a bug. Please refer to the many other comments on the same issue.


This is a plural possessive. It needs an apostrophe.


It's a bug. Please refer to the many other comments on the same issue.


I wrote "it is the dogs' water" and was corrected with a typo: it is the dogs water (no apostrophe) - THIS IS INCORRECT. A plural English noun used as a possessive has an apostrophe AFTER THE S. This is incorrect English, and must be corrected. Errors like this - in the English translation - are costing me loads of health, and making it impossible for me to make progress.


It's a bug. Please refer to the many other comments here on the same issue.


The possessive apostrophe is important in the English language


Yes, obviously. Unfortunately, all courses on Duolingo share this technical issue. Please refer to the many other comments here on the same thing.


Missing apostrophe on dogs.


Please refer to the many other comments here on the same issue.


I think that it says dogs' because it means plural dogs. E.g The water belongs to the dogs. The dogs' water. Because in english, if a noun ends in "s" , it will have the apostrophe AFTER the s , with no s after the apostrophe m E.g Mary's book Jess' book. The dog's water. The dogs' water. Hope this helped.


I typed "It is the gods' water" and it said it was wrong. Why is it not accepted :D


Because "gods" and "dogs" are very different things, at least according to cats.


Is it possible for it to be hunden vatten? Can possessives come in swedish without the s?


Not really, no. You might encounter some really old forms that still linger from older Swedish, but these are exceptionally rare and mostly only for certain names. For instance, the older possessive of Jesus is Jesu, and some people still use that.


I have to say, the adding of definitives onto the end of the word interests me a lot. Do any other Germanic languages (specifically the other Nordic languages) do this? I won't be sleeping im studying tonight,,


Just to make it clear for me.. if i say

"Det ar kattens fiskar" - it means the fish belong to one cat?

And "Det ar katternas fiskar" multiple cats own the fish?


Exactly like that!


So would "Dess hundarnas vatten" work as well?


No, dess means "its".


Can someone explain the "hundarnas" to me? Is that the regular plural for it?

  • hund = dog
  • hundar = dogs
  • hundarna = the dogs
  • hundarnas = the dogs'

Each of the additions is a standard suffix to create that meaning. :)


"It is the dogs water" makes no sense. It is either "It is the dog's water" or "It is the dogs' water".


This is the tenth error i have seen with missing apostrophes


Please, why not "vattnet" ?

THE water of the dogs. Why do only dogs get 'article' here? Maybe no need to, but it could also be hundarnas vattnet, right?


Different construction - compare English, you wouldn't say "the dogs' the water" because it's inherently definite. Same in Swedish. So hundarnas vattnet is ungrammatical.


Right,thank you. What about hundars vattnet instead? (Sounds more logical regarding to what i was trying to say) That could be the dogs' water too, couldn't it?


No, it still follows the same principle as English. You can't say "dogs' the water" just like you can't say "the dogs' the water". It's the same in Swedish. You can't use the definite after a possessive.


Okay so i just had quick question - When am i supposed to use "en" or "ett"? I found no correlations or patterns with those.. ;-;


12/14/2020 dogs' is still the only answer


Is it correct that they don't pronounce the 't' in 'det'm


I pronounced this correctly


The sentence is too confusing


Why can't we use "this" here?

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