1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Wiens broek is dat?"

"Wiens broek is dat?"

Translation:Whose pants are those?

April 13, 2015



Why the sentence wasn't something like " wiens broeken zijn dat? Or why the translation something like " whose pants is that"


"Broek" is one pair of pants, whereas "broeken" refers to multiple pairs of pants. It's a little confusing because in English it's a singular item with a name that's plural, but you're translating it from a noun that is singular. I got it wrong (and have had similar confusing instances), but I think you need to defer to the rules of the language to which you're translating, so even if it's "broek is" in Dutch, it's necessary to translate it to "pants are" in English.


Why should it refer to a pair of pants? This confuses me since pants are not like shoes.


It's just how dutch is, they treat a pair of pants as a singular object, een broek, which seems sensible enough to me.


Wihan AB, think of it as each "pant" covering one leg. So a "pair" of pants covers both legs.


That doesn't make sense. Have you ever seen one with just one leg sleeve? The dutch, just like germans speak of the singular item pants. I don't know about dutch but in Germany there is a different word for what you're referring to as "pant" that is "Kniestrumpf", a knee high sock.


Precantet, I am not talking about a "Kniestrumpf" or any other actual article of clothing. Nor am I talking about German or even Dutch. My comment was addressed to Wihan AB. I was talking to him about the English expression "pair of pants", and giving him an imaginary way to think about why English uses that expression, especially the word "pair".

There is still time for you to delete your misguided post, which misses the point entirely.


That's the exact English logic! Pants and Trousers are plural because they refer to a pair! So the Dutch is more logic because the word is singular, because it's one piece of clothing.


Whose pants are they, but yeah i guess.


"Dat" and 'those' point to something away from you. 'Whose pants are they?' would be "Welke broek is het?".


Hmm not really what I meant.

If 'pants' was not an English plural the sentence would read the same as 'whose sock is that.' Thus plural, 'whose socks are they/those'. Perhaps this is my West Scotland grammar, but it sounds normal to me?


"They" is the plural of "it". "Those" is the plural of "that".


I've spoken English fifty years and disagree. "They are someone's trousers" and "Those are someone's trousers" are completely interchangeable in Canadian English.

BTW, depending on local variation "pants" can mean either trousers or underwear or both.


Ross, what do you diagree with? Yes, the two sentences (with "they" or "those") mean almost the same thing.

But that does not change the fact that "they" is the plural of "it" and "those" is the plural of "that".


Is that even correct? It's "Whose pants are those" but from the given Dutch zin I fail to derive that... I mean how can 'dat' be 'those' and why is it 'is'? What about "Wiens broek is degenen?"?


Because simply the word is singular in Dutch and plural in English!


you would say "whose trousers is that" in Yorkshire Dialect. This is almost like translating between 3 different languages for me LOL.


I live in Yorkshire too. I would possibly hear -or even say _ whose is them kecks?

Unless you are Homer Simpson, you wouldn't eat these " shorts"

I think that all Rules of grammar and vocabulary can be somewhat flexible in all dialects of all languages


Broek could possibly be a a variant form of brugge or German Bruecke . What does "Broek in Waterland" mean? A pair of shorts does look rather like a bridge don't you think!


Not sure, but I think "broek" in the context of "Broek in Waterland" means brook, a stream.

[deactivated user]

    Haha I know what you mean


    The new voices you are using (in my case it is the woman's voice) is pronouncing "broek", "boek". The "r" is silent which I think can't be right. Maybe some problem here?


    Agree on this. I got the male voice and twice I wrote "boek" because you cannot hear the "r" without listening to the slow audio.


    I got the female voice and even with the slow audio I can barely make out the "r," probably only now because I know it's supposed to be there


    I had to listen to it with the slow version button, and still the "R" is almost silent, while I find that Dutch has pretty harsh "R" pronunciation.


    My answer is "whose pants is that". Why is that wrong?


    Because pants (and trousers) are plural, you can't have one pants, so it's whose pants (trousers) are those (those being the plural of that).


    IMO "Whose pants is that" should be allowed. You could quibble about the English grammar, but we are learning Dutch here, not English.


    Someone's boyfriend is in trouble...


    Hah, Duolingo uses American English - "broek" unambiguously means "trousers". (Though I suppose someone's boyfriend could get in trouble for that as well.)


    I put Whose trousers are they? This is how i would say it. Sounds normal to me. Possibly one of those things that's not actually grammatically correct but saying 'those' here sounds weird to my ear.


    ..... are they would be .....is het.


    It's just that they want literal translation... I struggle with it too because in French (my mother tongue) we don't often use the explicit demonstratives, so everything I translate with the "neutral" (it/they) and every time I get an error. It's grammatically correct but they want the literal translation. I guess it makes sense to teach a language, but I feel you...


    Can you say "Whose pair of pants is that?"


    broek is singular coz they take it from the french. in french you say '1 pantalon'. a lot of their grammar or expression is a direct translation from the french.


    I'm not really sure they "take things from French". Just some language use singular and some use plural, just because something exists in English doesn't make it a general rule for all languages in the world.


    I imagine broeken is a cognate of britches. Still, it's a plural word. There is no single britch. Such is the charm of language!


    In some shops (mostly old fashioned expensive ones, such as gents outfitters, or fashion stores) the staff may describe articles as "a trouser" or "a pant" when describing or promoting an item - it is not part of everyday speech but you can run into it in England. The customers still use "trousers" or "pants", so I see "a trouser" as pretentious and old fashioned, confined to staff in clothing shops, but not totally out of use.


    I wrote ''Whose pants are that?'' but still got it wrong. Why?


    Because "pants" is plural, and the plural of "that" is "those".


    And, more generally, plural noun plus plural verb requires plural after a copulative verb. Copulatives don't exactly have objects, but the number of the noun or pronoun after the object and the number before usually match.


    Whose pants is that? Wiens broek is dat? Oh well maybe I will get it eventually!


    Why those and not these?


    dat = that/those
    dit/deze = this/these


    When learning the word broek 'trousers' was accepted - in uk pants are underwear. but my translation whose trousers are those was not accepted. Why?


    Possibly it just hasn't been added yet, you can report that your answer should've been accepted when you get the question "wrong."


    English.......can we please have trousers not pants?


    Let me clue you in. This is an American company. If trousers wasn't accepted, report it. But don't expect pants to be replaced by trousers. And oh, by the way, make sure the rest of your sentence was correct before you send it in.


    I have put trouser and it came out wrong, it should accept the correct term too not only pant


    Trousers and pants are both obligate plurals for most English dialects - exceptions being Indian and African English.


    Whose trousers are those should be accepted as trousers is a plural noun in English.


    "Whose pants are these" was marked incorrect :/


    Yes, that is incorrect. It must be "Whose pants are those?"

    Nowadays, even some native speakers of English do not always make a distinction between these and those -- at least not in all contexts.

    Nevertheless, in standard English there is a distinction, and in standard Dutch there is a corresponding distinction between dit/deze and dat/die.

    So in a language learning program, when the program gives us the Dutch word for those, I think it is reasonable to require that it be translated as those rather than these.


    Wiens broek is dat, ik denk ik ken, Zijn huis is in de dorp, echter, Hij ziet mij niet, als hier ik stop, En kijk zijn broek vult op met sneeuw.*

    *Apologies for probably slaughtering Dutch in an effort to be mildly funny.


    Dank je Duo voor nog een ongemakkelijke vraag...

    Learn Dutch in just 5 minutes a day. For free.