12 Comments
I would certainly translate this as "I don't have shoes on, either." At least in american english.
Could someone explain the structure of this sentence ? Because litterally this is "I am not either in the shoes"... which makes absolute no sense to my French brain :)
As Jsiehler said in another sentence discussion, "to be in [article of clothing]" is an idiomatic way to express wearing something in Hungarian.
Another (probably more common) way to express it is "Rajtam sincs cipő" ("There are no shoes on me either").
"Cipőben vagyok" - "I am in shoes" = I am wearing shoes.
"Nem vagyok cipőben" - "I am not in shoes" = I am not wearing shoes.
"Én nem vagyok cipőben" - "I am not in shoes" = I am not wearing shoes.
"Én sem vagyok cipőben" - "I am not, either, in shoes" = I am not wearing shoes, either.
Or: "Me neither am in shoes" - as Yoda might have said.
All of these are fluidly expressed with "have on".
"I have shoes on". "I don't have shoes on". "I don't have shoes on, either."
(And I think this is better, since the hungarian sentences don't have the verb corresponding to "wear".) I so reported it.
The Hungarian "én sem vagyok cipőben" means "neither am I wearing shoes" or "I am not wearing shoes, either". So duolingo gives a baf translation, as that means "Én nem vagyok cipőben" = "I am not wearing shoes". Btw "vagyok cipőben" means "I am in shoes" means to wear shoes, and it cand be used with any other clothing, e.g. "Ingben vagyok" , "Pólóban vagyok"
Yes, It can be used with other clothing. Pólóban vagyok, nadrágban vagyok, ingben vagyok, zokniban vagyok stb. These are all correct.
1053
English is not my first language, but "I have no shoes on either" sounds correct to me.
