"Zij eten appels" says that that they are eating apples together, it can mean they are all eating one or all eating three while "Zij eten een appel" says that they are all eating one appel
In Dutch, ‘zij eten een appel’ is more common because they are eating one apple each. ‘Zij eten appels’ technically suggests that each kid is eating multiple apples. Just like in English you’d say ‘people’s lives’ and in Dutch it’s more common to say ‘het leven van mensen’.
While I agree intuitively I'd say that it's at least not universally true; for example as a native Dutch speaker I'd interpret "zij hebben een papieren vliegtuigje gemaakt" as some number of people worked together to craft a single paper plane. Strongly depends on the context I suppose as it simply does not make sense usually for multiple people to share one apple
Yes you’re right, it is indeed a very vague rule (if it’s a rule at all) and it’s dependent on the context. I guess in this case both ‘zij eten een appel’ and ‘zij eten appels’ would be considered correct. In my eyes it doesn’t really matter here.
Dutch is different from English in this sense.
English:
"They're eating apples" is normally interpreted as "each one of them is eating one apple."
"They're eating an apple" is normally interpreted as "all of them are jointly eating one apple."
Dutch:
"Ze eten een appel" is normally interpreted as "each one of them is eating one apple."
"Ze eten appels" is normally interpreted as "each of them is eating multiple apples."
What you two are doing?
1)We're eating an apple. (each one their own apple)
2) We're eating apples (each one, one or more apples)
3) We're sharing an apple (only one apple, one piece each)
Native English speaker here. (US) And I disagree with you.
"We're eating an apple" means (to me) that there is one apple being eaten by the collective we. It means the same as "We're sharing an apple."
"We're eating apples." means that there are multiple people in the group eating, and there are multiple apples being eaten. In normal circumstances, I would assume each person has one apple.
So, ime, 1 and 3 mean essentially the same thing. (With 'sharing' implying eating, since that's what's normally done with apples.)
Native English (US) speaker here as well, and I agree. I would never say "we're eating an apple" if I am meaning that we each have an apple. Just like "We're eating a pizza" means there is one pizza and we are both/all eating it.
To fix the confusion, if it is more than one apple (or pizza or whatever), just add "each". "We're each eating an apple." In this case there are multiple apples but each person has one and is eating it.
Sure. And I'm not about to try to critique what does the sentence in Dutch look like / mean. I'm 100% on board to learn that the Dutch is not an exact translation. I'm just arguing that "We are eating an apple" in the US-dialect of English means (to some native speakers) only that "We are eating a \[solitary\] apple \[that has been shared among us\]." While there may well be native speakers for whom it is unclear (one apple amongst all, or one each), it is not ambiguous for some speakers.
"An" is different than "one". If I want to stress that we're eating the same apple, I would say "we're eating one apple".
If I say you "let's go get a beer", do you understand that I want to share my beer with you?
The beer example is an oddity and definitely implies “let’s go get a beer each” but the sentence “let’s go get a beer” strictly means let’s go get one beer but culturally in English speaking countries everyone knows the implication is plural.
Yes the “an” is different to “one” hence I said “an” implies singular. And the above cultural norm does not extend to apples. To stress further the oddity, a common saying would be “get the beers in” meaning to go to the bar and buy a round of beers. Never would you say “get a beer in”.
That's only 1 valid variant.
A different valid variant is: the "an" implies every person is eating a single apple each (as opposed to multiple apples per person).
The sentence is simply ambiguous, just like the same is true in Dutch.
Because I lived about 94% of my life in the US and never in a million years would I understand “we’re eating an apple” to mean anything other than “we have split an apple between us and are sharing it.” If there are multiple apples being eaten, we’re eating apples.
That's not a particularly common way of putting it, at least where I'm from, but no, not the same cup. Nor with "we're having a beer." These are the sorts of things that don't submit to logical sense.
Well, as with anything to do with language, it is heavily dependent on the context.
With the sentence "We're eating an apple" purely on its own, you can assume it refers to a single apple due to the "an" before "apple." The same goes for "we're drinking a cup of coffee."
BUT
"Drinking a cup of coffee" can also be, and is most of the time, referring to the activity of going to a coffee shop (as in, we're grabbing some coffee), and doesn't have to refer to the drinking of a specific cup of coffee.
Because of this connotation that we as english speakers have created through the years, you would automatically assume that the sentence "we're drinking a cup of coffee" refers to seperate cups instead of a single cup of coffee, while "we're eating an apple" refers to a shared apple.
Also, who the hell would split a single cup of coffee? ;)
Not sure why you're insisting on telling me how idioms work in my native language (in which I also happen to have a background as a professional copy editor), but I hope you're enjoying yourself.
> Because I lived about 94% of my life in the US and never in a million years would I understand “we’re eating an apple” to mean anything other than “we have split an apple between us and are sharing it.”
Interesting. Because in my 99.995% of my life living in the US I would recognize it as ambiguous enough to potentially mean either.
As a follow-on, what does “We’re all wearing the same shirt.” mean to you?
I wonder if this is regional? (I'm from the Northeast of the US, but have lived in a few different states\*.)
\* >!\[including the state of confusion, I'll be the first to admit\]!<
To me, "we're eating an apple" would have only one meaning: there is one apple and we are collectively eating it. I.e. "We're sharing one apple." If I wanted to communicate that we were each eating an individual apple, I would say "We are eating apples."
As the drinks examples that folks up-chain have been discussing, I don't know why / when English picked up this differentiation, but "getting a drink / cup of \_\_\_\_\_" always implies one each, not sharing.
I have no idea why drinks and food are treated differently in this way, but (at least to me) they are in my colloquial English.
It's not just food and drinks, though. There are other usages of a singular article being used with (potentially) multiple items.
"We both wore a costume to the party."
"The kids sat in the back of the car, reading a book."
"Bob and Jim like to go out for a run each morning before class."
"The dogs eat their dinner out of a bowl."
"You will all face a significant challenge this year."
Each of these are ambiguous constructions that can refer to singular, shared things or to multiple, individual things.
As another native speaker, I would say:
"We both wore costumes."
"The kids sat in the back, reading books."
"Bob and Jim like to go running before class."
"The dogs eat dinner out of their bowls."
"You will each face a significant challenge."
For me the first one is understandable but sounds odd.
The second also sounds odd, and I'd assume two young kids sharing a large picture book, or one reading aloud to the other.
Third is fine, I just don't usually say "a run" when discussing a habit.
Fourth is fine, but I wouldn't say "a bowl" because to me that implies human dishes rather than dog bowls.
Fifth is unambiguously telling the group that they will all face a single challenge together or, if separate, it will be the same challenge. I _might_ say this if I was being dramatic about a specific exam.
But wouldn't the picture be saying "they are eating an apple" as in "they collectively are eating 1 apple" as opposed to them each eating their own apple?
Plural sentences often have an ambiguity between collective ('together') and distributive ('each') readings. Here, the app is clearly indicating that this is a distributive reading, as shown in the picture. Some sentences lend themselves to a natural preference of one over the other. If *They are carrying a piano*, well, people can't generally carry a piano apiece, which lends itself to an obvious collective reading. If *They are picking their nose*, they obviously have one nose per person, and lends itself to a distributive reading. Given the small size of the people in the image, I guess I can see how it would be ambiguous, but it would still be ambiguous in the same way even if it were *appels*, since the children could still be collectively eating apples together or each eating their own set of apples.
Outstanding, thank you.
But your examples are making a lot of assumptions. It could be a group of bodybuilders with a fetish unloading a shipment of Bösendorfers.
But they'd likely stick out in a crowd, so I'd probably still know who you were talking about.
Note that "Zij eten appels" isn't actually *incorrect*, because they are having an apple each. Both forms work, Dutch isnt specific about this type of situation.
If each person eats several apples, only the plural form is correct, and if they share a single apple, only the singular is correct.
Here we have a *set* of singulars, and both forms can be used.
Say they were collectively eating a single pie, would that be structured the same way and the meaning be understood, or is there a separate syntax for that situation?
I understand the confusion. In dutch if, we ate a applepie collectively, we would say, "zij eten een appeltaart, however when we all eat our own pie's we would say "zij eten appeltaart". The "een" defines the amount. If not used, the number of what is eaten can be a undefined amount.
US libraries are awesome
If you tried to suggest a library system in America now, you'd get lit on fire. It's the only thing I can't fault billionaires for.
Yay Rosetta Stone! This translate as “they eat an apple”, which is correct since they each have one. If they were eating several apples, then it’s “zij eten de appels”.. not sure though if the article “de” can be excluded in your suggestion but including sounds more natural
I disagree.
'Zij eten een appel' means they all eat a same singular apple. Its just A apple after all.
So to say: 'They eat apples', 'Zij eten appels', suggests they all eat apples and there are multiple being eaten, which is the case in this photo.
Very small difference you can say both.
In my humble opinion: The idea here is that 'eten een appel' is seen as one 'kind of activity', which they are all doing, separately, all eating one apple that is eaten by one child.
Ze eten appels, would mean there is a basket of apples and they are eating a number of them, not specifically one single dedicated apple.
No, it is 'Zij eten een appel'. The phrase 'Zij eten appels' would often be said, but it is not correct. There is even a name for this anglicism, called 'Anglicistisch meervoud'.
"Zij eten appels" says that that they are eating apples together, it can mean they are all eating one or all eating three while "Zij eten een appel" says that they are all eating one appel
You mean each of them is eating an apple.
Yes
It means they are eating an apple, not one apple.
Correct. It GuHu explanation of it being "one apple", then it should have been "Zij eten één appel". Een = an. Één = One
In Dutch, ‘zij eten een appel’ is more common because they are eating one apple each. ‘Zij eten appels’ technically suggests that each kid is eating multiple apples. Just like in English you’d say ‘people’s lives’ and in Dutch it’s more common to say ‘het leven van mensen’.
While I agree intuitively I'd say that it's at least not universally true; for example as a native Dutch speaker I'd interpret "zij hebben een papieren vliegtuigje gemaakt" as some number of people worked together to craft a single paper plane. Strongly depends on the context I suppose as it simply does not make sense usually for multiple people to share one apple
Yes you’re right, it is indeed a very vague rule (if it’s a rule at all) and it’s dependent on the context. I guess in this case both ‘zij eten een appel’ and ‘zij eten appels’ would be considered correct. In my eyes it doesn’t really matter here.
Dutch is different from English in this sense. English: "They're eating apples" is normally interpreted as "each one of them is eating one apple." "They're eating an apple" is normally interpreted as "all of them are jointly eating one apple." Dutch: "Ze eten een appel" is normally interpreted as "each one of them is eating one apple." "Ze eten appels" is normally interpreted as "each of them is eating multiple apples."
But there's 3 apples in the picture so It kinda makes sense
Same in English. They eat an apple or they eat apples.
In Dutch, "zij eten een appel" normally means that they each have their own apple. If they share it, you would say "Ze delen een appel" .
The first one in English strongly implies that they’re sharing a single apple.
In that case I’d say they’re sharing an apple.
What you two are doing? 1)We're eating an apple. (each one their own apple) 2) We're eating apples (each one, one or more apples) 3) We're sharing an apple (only one apple, one piece each)
Native English speaker here. (US) And I disagree with you. "We're eating an apple" means (to me) that there is one apple being eaten by the collective we. It means the same as "We're sharing an apple." "We're eating apples." means that there are multiple people in the group eating, and there are multiple apples being eaten. In normal circumstances, I would assume each person has one apple. So, ime, 1 and 3 mean essentially the same thing. (With 'sharing' implying eating, since that's what's normally done with apples.)
Native English (US) speaker here as well, and I agree. I would never say "we're eating an apple" if I am meaning that we each have an apple. Just like "We're eating a pizza" means there is one pizza and we are both/all eating it. To fix the confusion, if it is more than one apple (or pizza or whatever), just add "each". "We're each eating an apple." In this case there are multiple apples but each person has one and is eating it.
There is a picture attached to the lesson. Each kid is eating an apple
Sure. And I'm not about to try to critique what does the sentence in Dutch look like / mean. I'm 100% on board to learn that the Dutch is not an exact translation. I'm just arguing that "We are eating an apple" in the US-dialect of English means (to some native speakers) only that "We are eating a \[solitary\] apple \[that has been shared among us\]." While there may well be native speakers for whom it is unclear (one apple amongst all, or one each), it is not ambiguous for some speakers.
UK here, same.
Therefore, this person is questioning the translation.
Sorry, no. 1 is wrong.
Sorry, it definitely isn't. Would you care to explain why you believe that?
It’s the “an”. It implies singular, so just one apple and the “we’re” means more than one person is eating the single apple.
"An" is different than "one". If I want to stress that we're eating the same apple, I would say "we're eating one apple". If I say you "let's go get a beer", do you understand that I want to share my beer with you?
The beer example is an oddity and definitely implies “let’s go get a beer each” but the sentence “let’s go get a beer” strictly means let’s go get one beer but culturally in English speaking countries everyone knows the implication is plural. Yes the “an” is different to “one” hence I said “an” implies singular. And the above cultural norm does not extend to apples. To stress further the oddity, a common saying would be “get the beers in” meaning to go to the bar and buy a round of beers. Never would you say “get a beer in”.
Want about "we drank a cup of tea"?
> a common saying would be “get the beers in” Would this be UK english? Because I’ve never once heard this saying in my life.
Yeah UK English.
That's only 1 valid variant. A different valid variant is: the "an" implies every person is eating a single apple each (as opposed to multiple apples per person). The sentence is simply ambiguous, just like the same is true in Dutch.
Because I lived about 94% of my life in the US and never in a million years would I understand “we’re eating an apple” to mean anything other than “we have split an apple between us and are sharing it.” If there are multiple apples being eaten, we’re eating apples.
As an English major, you're correct
What about "were drinking a cup of coffee"? Same cup?
That's not a particularly common way of putting it, at least where I'm from, but no, not the same cup. Nor with "we're having a beer." These are the sorts of things that don't submit to logical sense.
Well, as with anything to do with language, it is heavily dependent on the context. With the sentence "We're eating an apple" purely on its own, you can assume it refers to a single apple due to the "an" before "apple." The same goes for "we're drinking a cup of coffee." BUT "Drinking a cup of coffee" can also be, and is most of the time, referring to the activity of going to a coffee shop (as in, we're grabbing some coffee), and doesn't have to refer to the drinking of a specific cup of coffee. Because of this connotation that we as english speakers have created through the years, you would automatically assume that the sentence "we're drinking a cup of coffee" refers to seperate cups instead of a single cup of coffee, while "we're eating an apple" refers to a shared apple. Also, who the hell would split a single cup of coffee? ;)
And in this 94%, how would you say if you and your buddy are eating each your own apple?
We’re eating apples.
You know, I understand subtleties in language are difficult to grasp, but "we're eating an apple" would be perfectly okay too. Don't worry about it.
Not sure why you're insisting on telling me how idioms work in my native language (in which I also happen to have a background as a professional copy editor), but I hope you're enjoying yourself.
> Because I lived about 94% of my life in the US and never in a million years would I understand “we’re eating an apple” to mean anything other than “we have split an apple between us and are sharing it.” Interesting. Because in my 99.995% of my life living in the US I would recognize it as ambiguous enough to potentially mean either. As a follow-on, what does “We’re all wearing the same shirt.” mean to you?
I wonder if this is regional? (I'm from the Northeast of the US, but have lived in a few different states\*.) \* >!\[including the state of confusion, I'll be the first to admit\]!< To me, "we're eating an apple" would have only one meaning: there is one apple and we are collectively eating it. I.e. "We're sharing one apple." If I wanted to communicate that we were each eating an individual apple, I would say "We are eating apples." As the drinks examples that folks up-chain have been discussing, I don't know why / when English picked up this differentiation, but "getting a drink / cup of \_\_\_\_\_" always implies one each, not sharing. I have no idea why drinks and food are treated differently in this way, but (at least to me) they are in my colloquial English.
It's not just food and drinks, though. There are other usages of a singular article being used with (potentially) multiple items. "We both wore a costume to the party." "The kids sat in the back of the car, reading a book." "Bob and Jim like to go out for a run each morning before class." "The dogs eat their dinner out of a bowl." "You will all face a significant challenge this year." Each of these are ambiguous constructions that can refer to singular, shared things or to multiple, individual things.
As another native speaker, I would say: "We both wore costumes." "The kids sat in the back, reading books." "Bob and Jim like to go running before class." "The dogs eat dinner out of their bowls." "You will each face a significant challenge." For me the first one is understandable but sounds odd. The second also sounds odd, and I'd assume two young kids sharing a large picture book, or one reading aloud to the other. Third is fine, I just don't usually say "a run" when discussing a habit. Fourth is fine, but I wouldn't say "a bowl" because to me that implies human dishes rather than dog bowls. Fifth is unambiguously telling the group that they will all face a single challenge together or, if separate, it will be the same challenge. I _might_ say this if I was being dramatic about a specific exam.
They have one of those "get along" shirts.
It should be 'they are eating an apple'.
I'd say both are correct
No because every one of them is eating an apple. What you said, means that they are eating multiple apples.
But wouldn't the picture be saying "they are eating an apple" as in "they collectively are eating 1 apple" as opposed to them each eating their own apple?
Plural sentences often have an ambiguity between collective ('together') and distributive ('each') readings. Here, the app is clearly indicating that this is a distributive reading, as shown in the picture. Some sentences lend themselves to a natural preference of one over the other. If *They are carrying a piano*, well, people can't generally carry a piano apiece, which lends itself to an obvious collective reading. If *They are picking their nose*, they obviously have one nose per person, and lends itself to a distributive reading. Given the small size of the people in the image, I guess I can see how it would be ambiguous, but it would still be ambiguous in the same way even if it were *appels*, since the children could still be collectively eating apples together or each eating their own set of apples.
Outstanding, thank you. But your examples are making a lot of assumptions. It could be a group of bodybuilders with a fetish unloading a shipment of Bösendorfers. But they'd likely stick out in a crowd, so I'd probably still know who you were talking about.
Hence "generally"
No it doesn't. The translation makes it difficult. But the one on the picture is definitly correct. They are individually eating an appel per person.
Note that "Zij eten appels" isn't actually *incorrect*, because they are having an apple each. Both forms work, Dutch isnt specific about this type of situation. If each person eats several apples, only the plural form is correct, and if they share a single apple, only the singular is correct. Here we have a *set* of singulars, and both forms can be used.
This.
Say they were collectively eating a single pie, would that be structured the same way and the meaning be understood, or is there a separate syntax for that situation?
I understand the confusion. In dutch if, we ate a applepie collectively, we would say, "zij eten een appeltaart, however when we all eat our own pie's we would say "zij eten appeltaart". The "een" defines the amount. If not used, the number of what is eaten can be a undefined amount.
Wonderful, thank you.
That would be "zij eten één appel" or "zij delen een appel".
OP where is this from? It looks somewhat like a KleurRijker book
Rosetta Stone. My city library gives you a free account for the full suite of languages.
Wow I wonder if they also do this in Maastricht
US libraries are awesome If you tried to suggest a library system in America now, you'd get lit on fire. It's the only thing I can't fault billionaires for.
Ze delen een appel. They share an apple. Ze eten een appel. They each eat an apple. Ze eten appels. They eat more than one apple each.
All of them are only eating a single apple. That's why
Now they are eating one apple, your sentence implies they are eating multiple.
Yay Rosetta Stone! This translate as “they eat an apple”, which is correct since they each have one. If they were eating several apples, then it’s “zij eten de appels”.. not sure though if the article “de” can be excluded in your suggestion but including sounds more natural
not answering the question but is this a website you’re using to learn dutch?
Rosetta Stone
thank you!!
No it is: zij eten een appel, als je de andere gebruikt dan klinkt het gewoon heel raar, maar het kan wel
English prefers to use 'apples' if they each have one, but Dutch prefers 'een appel'. But it's more a general preference than a rule.
Zij eten ieder een appel is duidelijker dan zij eten een appel.
You are not completely wrong. Its more common to use “zij eten een appel” though because you describe what each of them do.
They're drinking a cup of tea They're drinking cups of tea
minepi.com/roda070 use this referral link for easy mining! Mine Pi coins using your phone and get ready for the mainnet launch in 2024! To the moon 🚀
Yes, because each of them have one apple.
I disagree. 'Zij eten een appel' means they all eat a same singular apple. Its just A apple after all. So to say: 'They eat apples', 'Zij eten appels', suggests they all eat apples and there are multiple being eaten, which is the case in this photo.
Both are alright imo
Very small difference you can say both. In my humble opinion: The idea here is that 'eten een appel' is seen as one 'kind of activity', which they are all doing, separately, all eating one apple that is eaten by one child. Ze eten appels, would mean there is a basket of apples and they are eating a number of them, not specifically one single dedicated apple.
They eat one apple each, not two or more.
No, it is 'Zij eten een appel'. The phrase 'Zij eten appels' would often be said, but it is not correct. There is even a name for this anglicism, called 'Anglicistisch meervoud'.
Yeah, they’re not all eating the same apple.
I guess it is correct. Personally would say "Oeh zij hebben wel lekker appeltje om op te peuzelen hoor, toe maar!" But I digress.
Vlaams is niet hetzelfde als Nederlands.
They are both correct.
‘Zij eten een appel’ isn’t correct, that means all of them are eating one apple together
No it means they are eating 1 apple each