1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Dutch
  4. >
  5. "Zijn dit afbeeldingen of fot…

"Zijn dit afbeeldingen of foto's?"

Translation:Are these images or photographs?

November 7, 2014



Yes, but that's like saying is this Mars or a planet.


Not exactly. An afbeelding could be, for example, a drawing, a print, or a computer-generated image,.


Which is the same in English. You'd just say, Are these photographs? or Are these images photographs?


I've seen some computer generated images that were sufficiently realistic that it made sense to ask whether they were photographs or not. In that context, the original sentence seems reasonable to me.


Yes, exactly you'd say are these photographs or not? you wouldn't say are these images or photographs but you might say Are these images photographs? and you might say are these drawings or photographs? But you wouldn't say are these images or photographs... :)


OK, that makes sense.


You would say are these paintings/artworks or photos.


All photographs are images but not all images are photographs.


Quite but would you say these photograph's.? So why is there an apostropy in 'these foto's'?


I'm a bit confused as to why it is ''dit'' and not ''deze'', given that it is a plural noun (''afbeeldingen''). Bedankt voor de hulp


It is because "these" is being used as a noun/subject and not an adjective. The dit/deze correspondence is for when "these" refers directly to a het/de word as a descriptor of that noun.


So 'dit' and 'die' are never pronouns?


They can act both as demonstrative pronouns or as demonstrative determiners. If acting as a demonstrative pronoun, they do not modify a noun. For example: "is dit een oude foto?" Here, "dit" is a demonstrative pronoun. If acting as a demonstrative determiner, the modify a noun and thus must agree in gender with the noun they modify. For example: "is deze foto een oude foto?" In this last example, "deze" is being used as a determiner, that is, as a "pointer", it is specifying which photograph you are referring to. As such, it must agree with the noun it's " specifying". In this case, "foto". As " foto" is a "de-woord", you have to use "deze".


Nope, een afbeelding can be anything one depicts: een foto, een grafiek, een diagram, een logo, etc. Afbeelding literally means something like 'depiction' on [paper], beeld = image (the broad definition), afbeelding = image (on paper, on a screen, projected).


So, do I understand correctly, "een foto" is one type, a subcategory, of "een afbeelding"?

If so, would it be common in Dutch to link a subcategory to a main category with "or"? It isn't quite how one would do it in English, but it makes a certain amount of sense - sort of like "Are these images generally, or specifically photos?"


You're right, foto is a subcategory. And the usage of or is exactly the same in Dutch as it is in English, so the sentence has the same kind of odd feeling in Dutch.


Exactly. This sentence is a bit like saying, "Are these dogs or poodles?"


This makes so much sense now. So Afbeelding can mean any form of image, such as a graph or painting, and een foto is specifically a photograph, correct? If so, why is drawings not correct?


Correct those are all examples of afbeeldingen. Drawing = tekening. This is yet another specific type of image. In the exercise afbeeldingen and foto's are used, so you should use their translations images and photographs/photos.


I understand dit is being used as a noun here but since its taking about plural objects, shouldn't it be deze and not dit?


I'm aware that this has already been asked, but can someone please explain to me the reason why "afbeeldingen" takes "dit" instead of "deze"? Alsjeblieft en Dank je wel!



In short, to state that "these/those" are identical to something, "dit/dat" are used ( with zijn or other linking verbs); to state that "these/those" have certain properties, i.e. being described by adj., "deze/die" are used.

Hope this helps :)


I'm aware of this construction, but I'm confused due to the lack of an adjective to warrant this construction. I think after reading your explanation though, I've come to conclusion that the use of an adjective is being implied via "dit", but there is no adjective actually present in the sentence itself. Am I right, or am I a long way from the target? (<.>)


Check my reply to Igor Sanchez.


Why is here dit not deze?

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