Translation:Streets look better with houses.
Isn't the plural form of das Haus die Häuser? Why is there an 'n' at the end?
Thanks a lot! Also I'd like to ask one more question: Don't we need an article before Häusern if it is used in dative?
You would use an
in-definite article, because your not speaking of specific houses. The indefinite article would be "a" (ein) if the noun were singular, but when the noun is plural, the indefinite article is pretty much the absence of an article.
As pietvo states, "the houses" is not quite the same.
With article it would mean "Streets look better with the houses", which means something different and sounds awkward.
How about like this one: Straßen sehen besser mit Häusern aus. Is it correct or not?
"Häusern" is suggested to translate as "buildings". But when i use "buildings" it is mistake. Why?
It's the same in American English. Without houses it would be called a 'road.'
Could someone help me with the word order here? I forgot why the besser aus is kicked back
According to the German word order, the verb must come second. Here, however, we've got one of those "separable" verbs, or “trennbare Verben“ (if I spelled it right), which is "Aussehen". In those cases, the prefix (here "aus") is separated from the rest of the verb and is place in the last position of the sentence. The rest of the word order is modifiable, but it's constructed the way it sounds more natural. So, it remains: Straßen (subject) sehen (verb, second place) mit Häusern (circumstantial complement) besser (mode adverb) aus (prefix of the trennbar Verb, at the end).
Gave a Lingot because this was a helpful answer to my exact question. I do wish Duo would make those separable verbs clearer, though.
What is aus doing here? Was???? It's basically Streets look better with houses for.
aus is the separable prefix of the verb aussehen (to look, to have a certain appearance).
Why does the besser part go after mit Häusern? instead of before it? e.g. Straßen sehen besser mit Häusern aus.
That would mean "Streets see better with houses". Streets can't see (sehen), whether they have houses or not.
But they can look a certain way (as in: have a certain appearance) (aussehen).
Oh, so the 'aus' in the end means this? Well then why is 'besser' at the end with 'aus'?
"aus" is at the end because that is how one uses separable verbs in German. It's just a rule, much as the one that verbs take the second position in declarative statements.
Similarly, "besser" is being used as a predicate adjective, which means it too should come at the end (but the separable prefix takes precedence as being at the very end).
I put streets look better with houses (on them). Maybe that should count? I know there is no "on them"in the german sentence, but come on.
Sounds fine to me. My answer was also rejected, though it's commonly said this way in spoken American English: Streets with houses are better to look at.
Hello, I've read Kornellier's response but this sentence still just "feels" wrong.
When I see this sentence, it looks more like "Streets look better by using houses," like "mit Häusern" is an instrument describing how the streets should be viewed. In English, I'd consider "Streets with houses" a single noun phrase much just like "red houses" or "tall houses," and this really contradicts how my brain puts sentences together.
Is this really a natural-sounding sentence in German? I think I'll just have to get over not liking it, but I'm also hoping I'm not just wrong for finding it unclear.
It sounds natural to me in German.
Some streets have houses and some streets don't, and if the streets do have houses, they look better.
Streets look better with houses / when they have houses on them.
Similarly, you might say Du siehst mit langen Haaren besser aus "You look better with long hair; You look better then your hair is long".
I was given this sentence to translate into German, and I wrote exactly this sentence. It was marked wrong and I was given the "correct" translation of Strassen sehen besser aus mit Haeusern." Get your act together, Duo! It can't be wrong in one question and then the correct answer in the next!
"given this sentence", "wrote this sentence". Which sentence? The same one? The one at the top of the discussion page? (There are two, one in English and one in German, so which of those two is which?)
Or rather the one that AndreiBrat1 wrote? Or someone else?
Regardless, "Straßen sehen besser aus mit Häusern" (which is what you wrote in your comment, grumpyjack) is wrong: the separable prefix "aus" should come at the end of the sentence. And one should put besser after "mit Häusern" for the reasons spelled out by Kornellier a year ago.
Zengator, I noticed that in another instance of this sentence the preferred translation was exactly that: Straßen sehen besser aus mit Häusern. I actually copied and pasted it into a document that I keep German notes on. Too bad I didn't copy the URL because now I cannot find it. I wish a moderator would comment because if it was one of DL's "preferred solutions," could it really be wrong? Though I heard the partnership with Pearson has caused some bad translations to appear...
Philosophically this sentence embodies much of what is wrong with humanity... I am curious who comes up with these sentences?! How about sentences for folks who like farming, living in the woods, no neighbors for miles...