i am not realy sure what to make of that. Can someone clarify if that is a valid english sentence? It seems right and wrong at the same time. Would it be right to have it "Vet du vems hunden är det?" in svenska?
The exercise is currently showing me two "correct" answers so I'm unsure which one this thread is referring to, but actually one of them is indeed wrong. One is weird, but not wrong. Weird: ""Do you know whose the dog is?"". Unusual, but probably OK. However, ""Do you know whose dog it's?"" is not grammatical - Instead use: ""Do you know whose dog it is?"" http://english.stackexchange.com/a/2547/151409
Contractions are generated automatically by Duolingo wherever you have "it is", I'm afraid. :/
I would expect: "Do you know whose dog it is?" Maybe the problem here is, that it seems to be unnatural (while not being wrong) to have the dog in a definite form. In german this also occurs: "Weißt du wessen Hund das ist?" would be the normal way to speak. To say: "Weißt du wessen der Hund ist" seems to be utterly wrong aswell. I asked my native english speaking friends online, and none of them would ever say it the way presented here. Maybe it is just odd? Or i asked the wrong people? Now that I made up my mind about it, "Vet du vems hunden är det?" is obviously wrong, but how about "Vet du vems hund är det?" thanks so far.
@qixyl: I'd say the latter, but I want to stress that they're both idiomatic.
Which of the sentences more natural or euphonious for Swedish native speakers? "Vet du vems hunden är?" or "Vet du vems hund det är?"?
English teacher here... This sentence is not wrong but very very strange and would never be used.
The point is to teach the Swedish construction. Since English doesn't have a direct literal equivalent, the unidiomatic one has to be chosen as the default translation. Otherwise, you'd never get to translate from English into this (in Swedish very idiomatic) phrase.
So, I'm an English teacher, and while I certainly understand the idea of phrasing something in a particular way to aid memorization, this translation, while not technically wrong, is so strange that I've spent more time trying to remember what translation is allowed than the actual Swedish phrase. Please include the more natural, "Whose dog is this?"in the accepted answers.
"Do you know whose dog it is?" is also an accepted answer, so it doesn't require you to remember the default translation specifically.
I respect your request, but I am not going to add a solution that's not actually a translation of the phrase.
Im just gonna say the english translation of this is so bad i keep answering it wrong, can you please just make it "do you know whose dog that is"
I think one of the sight differences would be "that" implies the thing is not near, because you would use "this" if it were. "It" is more neutral.
The reverse phrase pair: Do you know whose dog it is? / Vet du vems hund det är?
Why is the Swedish in the definite article ('Hunden')? Shouldn't it be 'vet du vems hund är'?
The general rule is that we use the definite whenever both speaker and listener knows what object is meant. Here, the speaker is referring to a specific dog, and asking the other person if they know to whom that dog belongs. Most likely it's a dog they both can see.
Another general rule that holds here is that we normally cannot use an indefinite countable noun in the singular without an article. This is why your sentence "vet du vems hund är" is ungrammatical. You couldn't say that in English either: "do you know whose dog is" is ungrammatical too unless something is added.
If you want to say Do you know whose dog it is?, that would be Vet du vems hund det är? in Swedish, so those two work the same.
Do you know whose the dog is is not grammatical English. who the dog belongs to or whose dog it is would be proper translations.
It's perfectly grammatical, just very unidiomatic. Please bear in mind that whatever is chosen as the default English translation is what you'll be asked to translate in reverse. This means that idiomatic English has to yield for far worse options occasionally, unless we wish to not teach the Swedish constructions. I think that would be far worse, since the point is to learn Swedish.
Your examples are obviously much better, but they correspond to two other Swedish phrases. If either was put as the default, you'd never be asked to translate info vems hunden är, which is a very idiomatic phrase in Swedish.
Do you know whose the dog is? Is an out of date construction and would never be currently used in modern speech...although it IS grammatically correct...
The one offered is technically correct . But my offered an swer was refused . It us however the answer one would use in every day parlance . Do you know whose dog this is ? Both are acceptable.
I don't know which one it offered you because there is more than one but "Do you know whose dog it is?" is an accepted answer. Your use of "this" would make it a less accurate translation.
You're introducing a verb, "belongs", that has a different corresponding verb in Swedish - Vet du vem hunden tillhör?
Why is this not "Vet du vems hund är?" Why "hunden" instead of "hund"? Tack!
Disregarding the issue of English idiomatics, compare these two:
- Do you know whose dog is?
- Do you know whose the dog is?
Swedish works the same here.
This sentence is so awkward, no one would ever say it irl, at least not in that word order.
Hmm. People definitely do say “Do you know whose the dog is”. I’ve used that construction on occasion. I’m hearing it (in my head :)) in a Ulster (Northern Ireland) accent, for some reason. Possibly in Scotland too? I may be imagining the regions lol, but yeah, it’s definitely used. It IS to a much lesser extent , admittedly. I’m more likely to say “who owns this dog?” Or “whose dog is this” , which is more blunt, but effective ;)