1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Danish
  4. >
  5. "Du har ikke bukserne på."

"Du har ikke bukserne på."

Translation:You are not wearing the pants.

August 26, 2014



This comes in handy very often, when I feel like pointing out, that the other person is not wearing pants.


THE pants, in fact.


I just got marked correct for putting “You have no trousers on.”, then wondered why this was correct when the given answer is phrased to include the “the”.

In English, “You are not wearing the trousers.” refers to a specific pair of trousers with the implication being that the speaker is probably either surprised or disappointed that you are wearing a different pair. Could a native Danish speaker confirm or deny that the Danish sentence means this?


Yes, the Danish sentence means "You are not wearing the trousers.". Your answer, "You have no trousers on.", would be translated as "Du har ingen bukser på.". Omitting the "the", i.e. "You are not wearing trousers.", would translate to "Du har ikke bukser på.".


Bukserne here is plural, does this mean that multiple pairs of trousers are being worn or is it the same as English trousers where the plural is always used?


I'm pretty sure it's the same as English, from what I've learned here.


In England we have an outdated expression, ' You can see who wears the trousers in this house!' This is suggesting that the woman is boss of the household.


Lol, in Greece the equivalent expression is not outdated at all!


the exoression is still very much used in Slovenia as well.


And common in the United States... though we say pants as opposed to trousers.


In France, it's the same expression but with "panties" (Tu peux voir qui porte la culotte dans cette maison !)

  • 1524

I do looove the way that sentence sounds, it's like a song, I love its rythm x)


So very Scandinavian.


This sentence seemed really odd to me and I got zero hits as I tried to google it within quotation marks, I translated it as "you have no pants on" (du har ikke bukser() på) which was marked false. I do see the logic but you know. Just feels very odd. I guess that's sort of the point.


IMO, I think the "the" is the important difference there. I got it wrong as well so that's just my take on it.


Exactly. The article is the key. It came easy to me in this case because I have to pay special attention to articles since Czech, my first language, has no articles at all and I often miss them.


So what I have learned today is that Google does not index Duolingo lessons.


Danish is odd, get used to it :P I don't have an explanation, but since pants is something you wear, that would be the most accurate translation


My point was that google couldn't find a single instance of any Dane typing that phrase EVER on the internet, which is a bit peculiar.


Well, it is quite accurate anyway :)


Missing the word "any" from response column


I have news for you. Bukser = pants (us english )= trousers ( english english).Just so you know.

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