1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "I do not have time."

"I do not have time."

Translation:Jag har inte tid.

November 18, 2014



Couldn't "jag har ingen tid" be correct as well?


I don't think so because the negative is referring to the verb 'har'. I think if you would say "I have no time" rather than "I do not have time", your translation would be correct.


So the difference is whether or not the negative is referring to "have" or to "time". But what is the actual difference in meaning? Aren't both the same as they mean the same? Or is it that my English is not good enough here. (I also come from a Dutch background.)


I would say that, in English, 'I don't have time' usually implies 'I don't have time (for that particular task)', but 'I have no time' usually implies 'I have no time (for any task)'.


Really? I think people are trying to be so precise that get out from the grammar's and the street's realities.

So let's take a look on the English grammar:

I don’t have/ I have no

‘I don’t have’ and ‘I have no’ have the same meaning, but can be used in different situations.

According to grammar rules, we must use ‘I don’t have’ with physical possessions, and use ‘I have no’ with attitudes and desires.

I don’t have any money. They don’t have any meat.


I have no idea what you’re talking about. My new teacher has no patience. The boss had no right to fire me. However, today both are used interchangeably since they have the same meaning.

You can say:

I don’t have any money. or

I have no money.

NOTE: When you use ‘I have no’ the sentence will sound more dramatic or emphatic.

I have no job!

source: https://www.myenglishteacher.eu/question/difference-between-i-dont-have-and-i-have-no/


I was thinking the same thing. In Dutch and German it can translate as only "I have no time."


what about jag hinner inte?


Yes, that is an accepted answer.


What does hinner mean?


"To make it in time" or "to have time" or such things.


Aren't "I do not have time" and "I have no time" synonymous? If so, "jag har ingen tid" should be accepted.


The fact they have the same meanings doesn't change the fact their translations are diffrent


Why is "Jag har tid inte." not accepted?


You can't put inte at the end like that. It usually goes after the verb in a main clause.


Wow, thanks for the quick answer. Then I'm pretty sure I simply wanted to use the pattern of "Det gör jag inte." and such negative sentences...


Ah, good point! If you used the pattern where you move the object of action to the front for emphasis, this sentence would be "tid har jag inte". With actual pronouns, it's acceptable to squeeze them in between the verb and the "inte" in those constructions. With other nouns it might be technically grammatically correct, but sound strange.


Got it, tack så mycket!


Can't I use inga, like "jag har inga tid"?


Why not "jag har inte tiden"?

I always though "the" was grammatically required?


The "the" is grammatically required if you mean having the time as in knowing what time it is.


Why is gör, not accepted here


att göra = to do


Why is "Jag inte har tid" not accepted?


Why is gör not accepted? This Grammar is killing me :(.


"Att göra" means "to do" or "to make", so it would not make sense having it in this sentence.


What is the difference between timme and tid?


I think timme is "hour" and tid is "time".

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