"The purple dress is mine."
Translation:Den lila klänningen är min.
Why is it "klänningen" if there's already "den" at the beginning of the sentence?
Double definites are commonly used in Swedish like that when a noun has a describing adjective too.
De was used in another example with a dress as "the". I typed de lila klänning är min. Is this completely wrong? What about Lila klänningen är min or Klänningen lila är min?
The rule is that when an adjective describes a definite noun, it will also gain den/det/de depending on grammatical gender or number.
En-words gain "den", ett-words gain "det" and plurals gain "de". Thus, you can not say "de lila klänning", since klänning is singular.
Thanks a lot! I don't remember "de" ever being covered in a lesson. I definitely knew about "det" and "den", though.
Aren't "det" and "den" also used depending on whether or not an idea or object has been previously introduced? For example: "Det är en stor hund. Den är min hund." (referring to the dog that was introduced) But if only the sentence "Den är min hund" was said, then it would be incorrect because a "hund" has not been introduced, right?
Yes, precisely. It wouldn't sounds wrong to say "Det är en stor hund. Det är min hund." though. It's acting quite much as a dummy pronoun without meaning, so it defaults to det.
While Det är en stor hund. Den är min hund isn't wrong per se it still isn't the most idiomatic way of saying it. It sounds better to either go with Det är en stor hund. Det är min hund or Det är en stor hund. Den är min.
So, which one prevails? Choosing "det/den" based on gender or choosing "det/den" based on whether or not it has previously been introduced? Is it preference or rule?
Would this example be incorrectly translated as "Det lila klänningen är min" as opposed to "Den lila klänningen är min."?
What about a standalone sentence such as "Den bord är vitt"?
The most important thing is to always use det with things that have not been previously introduced in a construction like "det är X'.
In my first example, Det är en stor hund. Det är min hund, you can see that the dog has in fact been introduced in the first sentence, but it's still best to refer to it with det in the second sentence. This is because det is still not really referring to the dog, but to 'the thing I am talking about'.
For your examples:
With definite noun + adjective, you always have the article, and the article of course has the same gender as the noun.
So "Det lila klänningen är min" is wrong.
Article + definite noun with no adjective means 'that …'
So det bordet means 'that table'.
Again, the article always has the same gender as the noun, there are no exceptions from this.
Det bordet är vitt 'That table is white'
Den boken är vit 'That book is white'.
In the introductory construction, Det är en hund, det is not an article (it is a pronoun) and does not refer to the dog, so it's always det.
On the other hand, if you're really referring to the dog with a pronoun, that pronoun is used to replace the word 'dog', so the word 'dog' isn't in the sentence. Den är min. 'It is mine'.
So the choice between Det är en stor hund. Det är min hund or Det är en stor hund. Den är min. is just a question of preference (mainly based on how closely tied together the sentences are I think), but there are a lot of other rules at play that are really rules.
More about 'det är' here: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/9708920
Why "Den lilaa klänningen är min." is not right, as we need to use plural for color when its adj, for example "Vargen äter den svarta ankan" not stvart ???
Not 100% sure why, but some colors don't have ett or plural forms. You would also say "ett lila äpple", lilat does not exist.