"Hästarna är djur."
Translation:The horses are animals.
17 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Otherwise it would’ve been ett djur. You cannot plainly say ’Horses are animal’. It’s ungrammatical.
Djur means both animal and animals. But since the sentence ’Horses are animal’ is ungrammatical, you know it has to be plural since that’s the only grammatical option.
Plural. It has to be since there is no article and being singular would make it ungrammatical as @Lundgren8 mentions.
because its many of them, basically more than one for example: ett djur is one animal and djur its many animal
Not good English... :/ I put 'Horses are animals' That should be right!
That would be Hästar är djur which is not exactly the same thing. I agree that it would make more sense to say that, but this is just a translation practice.
I put that as well but after I submitted it I realised that a translation of what I had put is ungrammatical and in Swedish would actually be "Hastar ar djur", if that's any help! :-)
It's like 'männen' and 'mannen', they mean 2 different things (the men and the man).
306
The English translation should be "Horses are animals". Definite nouns that are generic, and not specific to something you just referred to, never get "the". "The horses you showed me are beautiful" is correct because you're to something specific, some real instances. "Horses are animals" instead refers to a whole category, and for this reason it shouldn't have the article, even if I understand the purposes here. My suggestion is to either accept both translations (with and without the) as correct, or to remove Swedish sentences that would have a definite that is a generic category and whould end up in this situation.
I had an issue with the pronunciation of "djur", the way it was said made it sound like "ure"
Why hästarna and not hästar? The first to me implies that not all horses are animal just these specific ones.