1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Danish
  4. >
  5. "Pigen har en kvindes elefant…

"Pigen har en kvindes elefanter."

Translation:The girl has a woman's elephants.

August 27, 2014



This whole skill is about a person doing an action to another person's possession.


Yes... The words are very limited to do much else. But yeah after looking it over I might try to add some more varied sentences.


Oh no I wasn't complaining. These sentences are already hilarious. Great job on the course :)


Oh okay :) I was just worried it maybe got a little too tedious :D I'm glad you enjoy it!


It actually helps when things are more on the funny, instead on the snob side.Easier to remember, and you guys have done some amazing work so far. :)



I know it makes grammatical sense, but it's still hard to parse a sentence that doesn't make any logical sense... is there a particular type of elephants that is supposed to pertain to a woman as opposed to a girl? Obviously, I would need to know so that I can make sure I get the right type of elephants. It would be very embarrassing. This is very important.


I could be wrong but I think in this case there isn't much difference between the use of the definite and indefinite articles. It could just as easily be "En pige har kvindens elefanter" and it would still mean the same thing. So it doesn't mean that there is a certain type of elephant that is "of women," it means that a woman owns elephants but the girl has them. I might be wrong though, I'm not a native speaker.


The article says something about what we know of the woman. If it's "a woman's elephants" then you are not saying you know the woman, and it can be any woman. But when you say "the woman's elephants", then we are talking about a specific woman.


There is a singular/plural mistake... The girl has a (one singular) woman's elephants (plural!). The girl has an elephant, or the girl has some elephants, or the girl has elephants, but NOT The girl has a elehants! RIGHT?! :/


No, it has correct grammar. This is because, the woman has multiple elephants. Therefore, the girl has a woman's elephants. If "woman's" was excluded you'd be right. It would be, the girl has an elephant, the girl has elephants, or the girl has some elephants. But since the elephants belong to the woman, they are not referred back to the girl.


Yes, exactly. The girl has elephants. Whose elephants? A woman's. The girl has a woman's elephants.


Another tranlation could be: "The girl has the elephants of a woman." Am I right? It is for me to understand the sentence.


Yes. Though it's rather strange way of turning it around. I think that's usually only done for objects even in English?


I am struggling a little now to make logical sense of these sentences. Is this the correct syntax for 'The girl has a female elephant'. As in possession, the girl owns a female elephant. Confused.


"En pige har en kvindes elefanter." / "The girl has a woman's elephants."
The meaning of the sentence is that "A girl has the elephants" that belong to "a woman".

In Danish, if the girl had an elephant that was female it would be: "En pige har en hunelefant." ("Hunelefant" = An elephant that is a she")


These sentences aren't supposed to be logical this is supposed to get your attention. I was going to say before I saw that comment that I thought Denmark wasn't that big of a country... So where are they keeping all these elephants?

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