"Azon a szép nőn nincs ruha."
Translation:That beautiful woman has no clothes on.
24 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Where is the sentence about strong young men wearing no clothes? Just to keep things equal?
No kidding! Quite a few sentences like this. ("Which girl is pretty? Neither.") Jibes with what I remember about my nagypapa's Füles magazine, but c'mon people! If we're going to titillate and judge, at least show us how to objectify men, too.
1398
It can mean that, too. Without context this is not the first meaning that comes into one's mind :-), but it is correct. Report it if it's not accepted.
Also, they don't accept an "is not wearing" construction in the English translation here? Wow. Inconsistent! Reported.
------- but duo does accept is wearing no clothes . . .
Big 8 feb 19
How come That pretty woman has no clothes on is not accepted? And BTW nice phrase, I need more of these...
- 1136
In many sentences "pretty" is not yet accepted for szép. We have to report it again and again.
- 1136
Does anybody say that in English? Not The pretty woman is naked or the pretty woman doesn't wear clothes?
Actually, yes - "There are no clothes on that woman!" is definitely a possibility. Or, "That woman doesn't have any clothes on!"
It's a little maddening that Duolingo doesn't know about the "have on" construction. At least according to me, that's the right translation of this construction in Hungarian.
I have the same question as @Guilherme. How would you say she's not wearing a dress (but might be wearing other clothes)?
- 853
@Guilherme & dvanclev: that would be "Az a szép nő nem visel ruhát". Happy New Year to everybody!
IMO, this is "just" a clumsy translation.
ruha => usually dress, rarely clothes
a nőn nincs ruha => the woman has no dress on
a nőn nincs semmilyen ruha => the woman has no clothes on
It could be understood in your way, but meztelen is naked, and that word was not used in the English sentence.
- 1481
Ruha means either a single dress or clothes, which already is plural. Both make sense here.
Ruhák would here mean that she is not wearing multiple dresses. Which might be possible in another scenario. With an other woman next to her wearing more than one dress and this one does not.
Your sentence states that the woman has no clothes in general, i.e. she has no clothes even in her wardrobe.
However, the source sentence states only that she has no clothes ON in this moment, and not that she has no clothes in general.
I respect that many people find nothing wrong with this statement but it was not too long ago when it was recognized that this phrase might be seen as inappropriate in some circles. Could we keep this "G-rated" for kids that might be doing this, not to mention some of us "more old fashioned" folks?
I recognize that I live in a world where this is more and more common and I choose to try my best to avoid it without saying too much. However, on a language learning forum, I would rather not have to translate it as an exercise.