1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Danish
  4. >
  5. "Manden har ikke tøj på."

"Manden har ikke tøj på."

Translation:The man is not wearing clothes.

August 27, 2014


  • 2748

This is the Danish course, I'd expect it to be the emperor.


So does 'ikke' always go immediately after the verb it modifies, or does it have the same rules as 'nicht' in German?


Yes, it goes after the verb. Jeg spiser... (I eat...); jeg spiser ikke... (I do not eat...).


Why it can't be "The man is wearing no clothes."?


Danish distinguishes ‘wearing no clothes’ and ‘not wearing clothes’, just like English. German and Dutch don't distinguish these, but Danish and Swedish do.


This is not always necessarily so in German. Though as a general rule, it is alright.

For instance: "Der Junge mag keine Erdbeeren" (the boy does not like strawberries).

But you can also say: "Der Junge mag Erdbeeren nicht".

or another example: "Sie lädt keine Fremden ein." (she doesn't invite strangers) you can also say: "Sie lädt Fremde nicht ein."


Because the verb isn't being negated. I don't know about Danish, but in French it's the difference between "Il ne porte pas des vetements" and "Il ne porte aucun des vetements". In the first instance, he is not wearing clothes. In the second, he is wearing "not-clothes" (as we say in English, "no clothes").


Dunno, I guess they don't have the "verb geen/kein/no obj" as do Dutch, German and English. But it does accept "the man has no clothes on"

P.S.: Pas de vêtements; Aucun vêtement *


It could have been "manden har intet tøj på", but it's not the actual sentence in this case.


The man hasn't any clothes on?


Duo prefers literal translations to semantic ones. What you say is semantically valid but literally wrong - the lexeme "any" does not turn up in the given text.


We do say in English "He has no clothes on" as meaning the exact same thing as "He is not wearing any clothes".


in German "Ich trage nichts" "i am not wearing anything"


I wrote "the man is not wearing his clothes" and it turned out wrong. if the man is wearing clothes obviously enoug are his clothes and I think that in english it sounds better. maybe I am wrong on some points, please tell me...


Just because someone is wearing clothes doesn't necessarily mean they are his. My daughter borrows my jacket all the time because it's comfy, but it's still my jacket even if she is wearing it.

The sentence here doesn't denote ownership. To say "The man is not wearing his clothes" you'd probably need to say "Manden har ikke hans tøj på." The "hans" here means "his".


Or it would say "sine"


I know the speech is supposed to be realistic, but it is so quick its very difficult to catch -yes, I can listen to the slow version, but I'd prefer to try and understand normal speech.


This reminds me of a fairy tale The emperor's New clothes and if you're not the emperor and can't be told what's going on please get that man a loin cloth

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