- Forum >
- Topic: Swedish >
- "Han har på sig handskar."
42 Comments
If I wanted to say "he has his gloves on", how would that be said? "Han har sin handskar på sig" ?
I know, but if you take it word for word I don't see the reason for sig at the end of "Han har sina handskar på sig." (Han is he, har is has, sina is his, handskar is gloves, på is on.) Where does sig come into play?
Yes, but taking it word for word won't get you very far. I think you'll just have to accept that "ha på sig" is a single unit as far as the actual meaning goes.
It is the same to don't use 'the'. That word does not exist in Swedish, you actual don't need "den", for exempel: "Den där" (That one), you can say; "Dem/Det/De där/[dära]".
So, would the negative form be "Han har på sig inte handskar" or "Han inte har på sig handskar"? (He does not wear gloves)
773
it's so similar to polish! "on ma na sobie rękawiczki" (literally "he has on himself gloves")
I constantly want to write, "He is wearing gloves," why is this wrong?
How can I tell the difference between him currently wearing gloves and the fact he sometimes wear gloves?
One of my biggest problems learning Swedish has been forgetting English. It is often very similar but you have to just accept it's not right when you just word for word translate something. Like har på sig..
A year later, but I'm having the same issue. I keep trying to directly translate word-for-word, and that doesn't work. "Har på sig" literally translates to "has on [he/she/it]self." And then you have the word "bär", which means "wearing/bearing/carrying" etc.
It's confusing stuff, yo.
Because it's not grammatically correct English. That would be "he has his gloves on".
How would you say, "He is wearing her hat?" or any variation of people/clothing items?
Would it be: "Han har hennes hatt på." ? Like "He has her hat on"?
Or what is the correct word configuration here?
Yes, because "has on" and "wears" are used interchangeably in English. It is also the more literal meaning of "Han har på sig handskar" -> "He has on him gloves"
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The correct answer for me was "He wears gloves." "is" wasn't in the word choice. Neither was "wearing.".
It just seems like a lot to say to say he wears gloves.
Well "har på sig" literally means "has on him" because not every word in English has the same word in Swedish. "Wearing" is one of them. Instead of saying a simple word like "wearing," they use a combination of words to mean the about the same thing.
Particle verbs.. you just have to accept the whole thing not try and translate each part
Why would "he has on himself gloves" be incorrect? Is that not the literal translation or is it just looking for "is wearing"?
It is the literal translation but i have never heard or read english where "has on" is used as "wears" (english natives correct me if so). Sometimes you simply cant translate literally between swedish and english, but in a lot och cases it works.
"Has on" is a perfectly natural use in English, though not "has on him/herself".
"She has on a red coat" is just as valid as "She's wearing a red coat". I just agree that it would rarely ever be said as "She has on herself a red coat." Though "She has on her red coat" would again be fine.
