1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Danish
  4. >
  5. "Han har ikke tøjet på."

"Han har ikke tøjet på."

Translation:He is not wearing the clothes.

September 14, 2014



Duo! Cover yourself!


I thought he's just not wearieg the clothes, but might as well be wearig something else


Oh c´mon! I´ve never seen Duo wearing clothes. :)


The Emperor perhaps?


Congrats on 1000 Days!


That's what I thought of too


Could the sentence "Han har ikke tøj på" be possible and still mean the same?


I think they're both valid sentences, but with different meanings:

"Han har ikke tøj på" = He is not wearing (any) clothes.

"Han har ikke tøjet på = He is not wearing the (specific) clothes.


yes it is possible, even asked to me actually but no it does not mean the same. (see valoriens comment)


Can anybody hear the final -et in tøjet? Cause I really can't.


I find this Danish pronunciation guide very helpful: https://youtu.be/4k6euxk-4Bo. At 2'20", it discusses the word ending "-et". Unlike the indefinite article "et", the word ending "-et" gets a "soft D" (bløde D) sound.

I think "soft D" is the most challenging sound in Danish phonology for a foreigner to master. It is the same sound that we hear at the end of the familiar word "mad" (food). It is often phonetically transcribed using the Old English and Icelandic letter eth "ð", but in the Danish soft-D, the tongue doesn't actually touch the center upper teeth. To foreigners it sounds more like "L", but to Danes these are distinct sounds -- in a soft-D, the tip of the tongue is actually inclined downward, tucked behind the lower teeth. There are several You Tube postings from Native Danish speakers to help us learn to make this sound.


Thanks much for this. I am struggling to divorce L from bløde D. I fear my ears are too old.


It is very faint, but it is there.


I´ve found Danish pronuncation to be close to French. And Dutch, too. The French keep losing last four letters of a word and the Duch just sound so much alike.


'He wears no clothes' should be accepted, yes?


This sentence is implying that he is not wearing THE clothes which means he could still be wearing another set of clothes or maybe none at all. So that translation wouldn't be sufficient.


Wow, it's only with this sentence that i actually discover that our progress in Danish is not bad at all! So fluently... Hi five for all of us !


Hmm. ikke sounds like eget to me here. Is this pronunciation correct?


"ikke" is pronounced like "ig", usually. Maybe sometimes the ending is also pronounced for emphasis.


In Rigsdansk you would say the entire word. In most dialects "ikke" is shortened to ik'.


We can consult the forum posting on Danish Alphabet and Sounds https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/4287094/Danish-Alphabet-and-Sounds: Double-K's sound like double-G's, (and double-T's sound like double-D's).


Seriously? These sentences are getting ridiculous!


Woah. Chill Duolingo.

[deactivated user]


    Can't it also be "He does not have clothes on?"


    his clothes, the clothes Same, same in this context - just not to a dump algorithm


    things are getting spicy...

    much to my regret.


    Clothing vs clothes. They are the same thing, yet I am apparently wrong.


    I English we would omit the article: He's not wearing clothes. Is this possible in Danish? (Han har ikke toj på.)


    I'm probably too late to answer your question, but I am pretty sure it is. However, it is not the correct answer to this question, because "He is not wearing the clothes" implies that he could still be wearing something else, while "He is not wearing clothes" implies he has nothing on at all.


    Interesting, because judging from the majority of comments here, most are thinking he has no clothes on!

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