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.
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
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.
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.
This one bugs me so much. Not the Swedish. I get that. But at least in American English I would always say, Do you know whose dog that (or this) is? as a translation just because I would NEVER ever say Do you know whose the dog is? It is technically correct perhaps but to count my English translation answer as wrong when I SPEAK English, hello. At least leave it as an alternative. I lived with Swedish and translated word orders in my head into proper English all the time. Just because this is correct in Swedish does not mean I should translate word order into English incorrectly. Is anyone paying any attention at ALL?
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.
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 ;)