"Nem vagyok zokniban."

Translation: I am not wearing socks.

[btiirwin]

So, sometimes to say "wear" you use van+article of clothing+en/on, and sometimes, as with socks and jeans, you use ban/ben instead of en/on? Does this change according to the article of clothing or can you use either case for any article of clothing?

[vvsey]

I think it is always "-ban"/"-ben", regardless of the piece of clothing.

But there are more than one ways of expressing wearing something.

"Zokniban vagyok." - I am in socks.
"Zokni van rajtam." - There are socks on me.

The subjects shifted from me to the socks.

[begemotv2718]

Why "I don't wear socks" is not accepted? It seems that simple present is never accepted for items of closing, while in the other situation the simple present and present continuous is not distinguished in hungarian. Is it a bug or a feature?

[ion1122]

begemotv, the Hungarian here literally means 'I am not in socks'. That is not a statement about what you always or generally wear, but rather a statement about a current situation.

[p8888r]

"I don't wear socks" means "Nem hordok zoknit". "Nem vagyok zokniban" means "I am not wearing socks" (right now)

[Arpad737071]

By using the construct

[ piece of cloth + inessive suffix ] + to be
[ piece of cloth + -ban/-ben ] + to be

e.g.

Zokniban vagyok.
Nadrágban vagy.
Ingben van.
Kabátban vagyunk.
Szoknyában vagytok.
Öltönyben vannak.

you are expressing what is the outermost layer of someone's garment.

Zokniban vagyok. => I am wearing socks and no shoes/boots/slippers.
Ingben vagyok. => I am wearing a shirt and no vest/coat.
Alsóneműben vagyok. => I am wearing only underwear and no other garment.
Kabátban vagyok. => I am wearing a coat.

If you negate these constructions, you indicate that you are not wearing that garment only if it is usually the outermost item, e.g.

Nem vagyok kabátban. really means I am not wearing a coat.
Nem vagy cipőben. means You are not wearing shoes.
Nincs öltönyben. means He is not wearing suit.

However,

Nem vagyok alsóneműben. does not indicate that I have no underwear on, but only that I wear something over my underwear.
Nem vagy zokniban. does not mean that you do not wear socks, but that you have something over your socks - e.g. slippers, shoes, etc.

In these latter two cases, you indicate that you do not wear a specific garment by using the construct:

nincs + superessive of personal pronoun + piece of cloth
nincs + [ rajt + possessive suffix ] + piece of cloth

e.g.

Nincs rajtam zokni. => I do not have my socks on.

[Ishana92]

so is it yhat zokni is considered plural (sort of the oposite of pants in english), or is singular usual way to say wearing socks instead of using hungarian plural?

[chirelchirel]

I think I read in several places, that things that come in pairs are referred to with a singular word. Though, you probably already saw some of these explanations.

[BigWayne19]

-------- the tips for this clothing unit said that on, en, o:n and -n would be used a lot . and here we're using ban/ben . how did that come about ? . . .

Big 8 jan 18

[RyagonIV]

You can express wearing clothes in various ways:

• Zsuzsa zokniban van. - Zsuzsa is in socks.
• Zsuzsán zokni van. - There are socks on Zsuzsa.
• Zsuzsa zoknit hord/visel. - Zsuzsa wears socks.

The first two forms are mostly used for what you're wearing right now, while the last option is often used in a broader sense - What's your style of clothing?

[Tielbert]

If I said "Zoknikban vagyok", how would it change the meaning? I mean plural usage.