"Hij wordt helemaal rood."
Translation:He is turning completely red.
I typed, "He is completely red", which wasn't accepted. I have a hard time with "worden", so I'm not sure if I'm just way off base, or if I should report this? Is there a reason "is" isn't acceptable here? I guess the way I understand "worden" is that even when it's used as "is", it's understood to be "is" in the sense of "is becoming".
So, while I understand the correction solutions offered ("He gets completely red" and "He turns completely red"), and I understand that they would have been better choices than the one I typed, wouldn't -- strictly speaking -- my translation be technically correct?
Anyway, just looking for some guidance. This particular verb seems to throw me every time. :) Thanks for your help!
Keep in mind that "worden" can serve different syntactic functions. It can be a copula, like in this sentence, in which case the meaning is usually "to become".
It can also be an auxiliary verb in the passive voice, in that case it is accompanied by a past participle and it's translated with the verb "to be".
So: De hond wordt moe The dog is becoming tired (copula)
De hond wordt gevoerd The dog is (being) fed (passive voice)
Maybe this was already obvious to you, I just thought it might cause the confusion
"Hij wordt rood" implies that the person in question is still in the process of turning red, whereas "hij is rood" means that he already is or always has been.
Hope this helps!
Thank you! :)
I guess my next question, then, is when is "is" ever an acceptable translation? It's one of the hover clues, and I know I've seen it used as an acceptable translation before, but as "worden" seems to always means a transition of some sort, when is "is" okay and when isn't it?
I typed "he turns completely red" which was wrong, but "he becomes completely red" sounds like bad English