"Wij hebben dorst, maar wij hebben geen water."

Translation:We are thirsty, but we do not have water.

3 years ago

8 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/Morna157531
  • 22
  • 22
  • 21
  • 16
  • 5
  • 125

Why not " we are thirsty but we haven't any water " ?

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/monkey_47
  • 24
  • 14
  • 13
  • 12
  • 10
  • 602

"have" is used here as main verb, not as an auxiliary verb. Hence, the negated form is "we don't have any water". In the alternative, you could say "we haven't got any water". Since it's an auxiliary verb to 'got', you would use 'haven't'. https://linguapress.com/grammar/have.htm

10 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Dutchbulb

I still agree with Morna157531: "we are thirsty but we haven't any water" would work fine as a translation in Northern England, for example. I tried "we are thirsty but we have no water" which I think is fine but was also rejected

8 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Bruce_OBrien

Dat is waarom jullie hebben dorst, het is omdat hebben jullie geen water.

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/xMerrie
Mod
  • 25
  • 20
  • 18
  • 17
  • 11
  • 11
  • 11
  • 6

Almost correct! In both sentencens, 'hebben' should be at the end (because of the words 'waarom' and 'omdat').

'Dat is waarom jullie dorst hebben. Het is omdat jullie geen water hebben.'

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Dim-ond-dysgwr

Just out of interest: in Dutch is it obligatory to write a comma between the clauses in sentences like this? (It wouldn't be in English.)

1 year ago

https://www.duolingo.com/monkey_47
  • 24
  • 14
  • 13
  • 12
  • 10
  • 602

That's not totally correct. There are instances, where a comma is required. It depends on the construct used: https://www.dailywritingtips.com/comma-before-but/

10 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/UWCDUTCH

should it not be wit zijn dorst

1 month ago
Learn Dutch in just 5 minutes a day. For free.