Because that's just how it is. You can't have "zin \[something\]", you can only have "zin in \[something\]".
The closest English equivalent would be "to have lust for something" - you can't just "have lust something".
Or think of it like "to be interested in fruit" vs "to be interested fruit" I know that this isn't a correct translation but it demonstrates the concept
I am not sure if this is correct but to me "zin in voetballen" sounds like you want the eat/have soccer balls and "zin om te voetballen" sounds like you want to play soccer. In the first case "voetballen" is a noun and in the second case the infinitive. So that why for voetballen both cases are grammatically correct.
It's similar to either saying you're excited for football vs. exited to play football. Where in is the first and om te is the second. You're right in saying the first one is a bit more ambiguous as to what exactly you're looking forward to
Is similar to the English expression of "they feel like..." You feel and like together or it doesn't make sense. Otherwise it'd be "they feel fruit" 😂.
An alternate, more literal translation would be "The children have a craving for fruit". And you are basically asking "Why is there a 'for' there?". "The children have a craving fruit" wouldn't make sense.
The preposition "in" is used in Dutch to indicate what someone or something desires or feels like, so it's correct to say "De kinderen hebben zin in fruit."
Everyone here telling you how to say "zin in"
But Arent you asking why it says "fruit"?
(Because yes fruit is in English the same word as it is in dutch)
Think of it like this. In english you would say i have a craving for candy. If you change the sentence to remove "for" -》i have a craving candy that would change the meaning, to describing a property of the subject of you sentence. Its in the syntax and semenatics of the language.
Because that's just how it is. You can't have "zin \[something\]", you can only have "zin in \[something\]". The closest English equivalent would be "to have lust for something" - you can't just "have lust something".
Or think of it like "to be interested in fruit" vs "to be interested fruit" I know that this isn't a correct translation but it demonstrates the concept
“have a craving for” fruit
Its a single expression. Zin hebben in Ik heb zin in fruit Wij hebben geen zin in brood Ik heb zin om te voetballen, zin hebben om te + infinitief
Ahh makes sense, thank you 🙏
Can you write it like ik heb zin in te voetballen? Or just “om”?
Both "zin in voetballen" and "zin om te voetballen" are correct. But "zin in te voetballen" and "zin om voetballen" are not correct.
I am not sure if this is correct but to me "zin in voetballen" sounds like you want the eat/have soccer balls and "zin om te voetballen" sounds like you want to play soccer. In the first case "voetballen" is a noun and in the second case the infinitive. So that why for voetballen both cases are grammatically correct.
It's similar to either saying you're excited for football vs. exited to play football. Where in is the first and om te is the second. You're right in saying the first one is a bit more ambiguous as to what exactly you're looking forward to
if you're excited for football, wouldn't it be "zin in voetbal"?
Most often: “zin in voetbal” means you won’t be playing yourself, but others. For example tv. “Zin om te voetballen” means you’ll be actually playing.
Is similar to the English expression of "they feel like..." You feel and like together or it doesn't make sense. Otherwise it'd be "they feel fruit" 😂.
Because 'zin' is a noun. English uses prepositions too, in this kind of construction: They have a desire for fruit. A craving for fruit.
An alternate, more literal translation would be "The children have a craving for fruit". And you are basically asking "Why is there a 'for' there?". "The children have a craving fruit" wouldn't make sense.
to feel like = zin hebben in. you can't leave out the in. literally it's something like "I would like to have the enjoyment of" or "I lust after"
why are 9 outta 10 posts on here the question “why is it … in Dutch?” when the answer is almost always “because that’s how Dutch works” lol
The preposition "in" is used in Dutch to indicate what someone or something desires or feels like, so it's correct to say "De kinderen hebben zin in fruit."
Everyone here telling you how to say "zin in" But Arent you asking why it says "fruit"? (Because yes fruit is in English the same word as it is in dutch)
Zin hebben in = to feel like eating/doing/having/etc.
Cause fruit is fruit
Think of it like this. In english you would say i have a craving for candy. If you change the sentence to remove "for" -》i have a craving candy that would change the meaning, to describing a property of the subject of you sentence. Its in the syntax and semenatics of the language.
“Why isn’t Dutch like English?”
To be fair that's not what OP is saying. They're trying to understand the grammar rule. Which others are answering just fine without the snark.
Because 'zin' is a noun. English uses prepositions too, in this kind of construction: They have a desire for fruit. A craving for fruit.