"This year is the year of the dog."
Translation:I år är det hundens år.
The question is whether it sounds natural to a native speaker's ear, in order to validify whether anyone would use a sentence of such an arrangement. And to me, as a German speaker, it does not sound natural in my native tongue either. »Es ist das Jahr des Hundes, dieses Jahr«, translating it literally. It sounds redundant at the end, and utterly awkward. If I were a moderator of either language, I wouldn't accept it as I never spoke myself this way.
Just my two cents.
It is like saying "This year, it is the year of the dog." It's phrased slightly differently than the English way. In English, we make "year" the subject instead of "it." Det comes after är because there is an adverb at the beginning of the sentence and the verb must stay in second position.
I came into this discussion section because I had the same question like above but thanks to your answer i realised that in Polish I also would have said "Ten rok TO rok psa" which is literally "I år är DET hundens år." This is what happens when you start thinking i the language you are using, not your native ;)
So "det" reffers back to "är" instead of "år"... it actually makes a lot of sense, I thought "I år" was the subject and "det" referred to "år", making it "det hundens året", which was the epicenter of my doubt over why is "år" indefinite. So, could you phrase it "I år är det det hundens året"?
Same here. I also study Swedish on Sfi in Sweden and work with their materials on my own, it's been 3 months of Sfi and Duolingo together and additional month of Duolingo only and I still don't get simplest things in the store, especially at the register. They always ask me something like 'is thar all' but I can't depict words. It's a hard language.
I really think the English version of the sentence should be revised to be "It is the year of the dog, this year." or "This year, it's the year of the dog." ... Right now, it throws a lot of us off by pretending that "this year" is the subject, whilst it's actually an adverb in the Swedish solution.
It's a perfectly fine sentence, just a matter of the course generally trying not to change sentence construction too much. That's partially because a specific construction is occasionally being taught, but also partially because the manual labour in adding additional constructions in a lot of places would become hard to manage very quickly.
Actually, that's wrong. The "ownership" of the year by the dog (not dogs) is expressed in Swedish by a genitive, that is, a grammatical case, whereas in English by a preposition ("of"). "Dog" cannot be seen as an adjective here, exactly for the reason that there is a preposition referring to it. It could be in a sentence like "the dog year".
I am resorting to mathmatics to remember some of this terms. So, I came up with a formula to remember the "the year of the dog" or anything similar to that. The formula is: a b = the b of the a (a = genitive words, b = any words) So by this formula we can see that hundens(a) år(b) = the year(b) of the dog(a)
Yes, det refers to the year. It's a bit like if English had said "this year, it is the year of the dog", where "it" would have referred to the year.
Your suggestion works but det här triggers the definite, så: det här året är hundens år. It's not nearly as idiomatic, though.
I put "det hundens år," but if it were an "en" word like "mat" instead of an "ett" word like "år" you would use "den" instead of "det," right? So it would be "den hundens mat"? And whether the posessive in the phrase ("hundens," in this example) is an "ett" or "en" word doesn't affect whether it's "det" or "den," correct? Also, what (det/den/etc.) would you use if it were paired with a plural noun?