1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Dit is de directeur wiens sc…

"Dit is de directeur wiens schoenen ik gekocht heb."

Translation:This is the director whose shoes I have bought.

December 9, 2014



[..] whose shoes I have cooked.

What a nice false friend from German

[deactivated user]

    What's worse is that that is just a normal duolingo sentence


    Ha! This often gives me pause, too. But it helps me to remember that Dutch -ch- often replaces German -f-: gekocht/gekauft, lucht/Luft, kracht/Kraft.


    Can this be reformulated to "Dit is de directeur van wie ik de schoenen gekocht heb"?... Or is there a reason it is wiens and not van wie? Are the masculine and feminine the same, if I never use wier?


    There is a slight difference, grammatically at least. Your suggestion would translate to: "This is the director from whom I bought the shoes". It doesn't describe the ownership of the shoes, but rather the person who you are buying them from. Perhaps someone stole the director's shoes and is selling them on the black market!

    "Wier" is traditionally the feminine form of "wiens", but it is going out of use. Most native speakers these days will use "wiens" for masculine, feminine and plural. See here for more info (in Dutch).


    Could the order of "gekocht" and "heb" be changed?


    I guess you could say "voor wie" or "van wie" instead of "wiens" in this sentence, because "wiens" could mean two things: you either bought new shoes for him, or you bought his shoes for someone else. If you use "voor wie" or "van wie" instead, the meaning would be much clearer.


    That is correct, but if you were to use 'wiens' in this sentence, people would generally understand it to mean 'van wie' without any further context.


    The phrase ' wiens schoenen ik gekocht heb' could also mean 'for whom I bought shoes'.


    Have you bought from the director or for bought for the director?


    So have I bought second hand shoes from this director or does this director sell shoes because he runs he runs a shoe store. Could somebody please explain what this sentence means.


    Chaplin is long dead. There was no certificate of authenticity, but I could tell they were his shoes by the tooth marks.


    I'd say it can only have the first meaning. If I'm buying the shoes at his store, I wouldn't use this construction but say something like "dit is de directeur van de zaak waar ik de/mijn schoenen heb gekocht" (this is the director of the store where I bought the/my shoes)


    Is "wiens schoenen ik kocht" also okay?


    It's a correct Dutch phrase, it's just not a complete equivalent of the English one.


    I have twice translated this correctly but it says that I have not

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