"Hon har skor på sig."

Translation:She is wearing shoes.

November 21, 2014

This discussion is locked.


Where would you put the clothing article? Does it matter? Here it's between har and på; but in other exercises I've seen it at the end, for example: "Kvinnorna har sig på klanninger."


I think it's a question of emphasis. But it doesn't matter much. I'll have to investigate this in real life to see which one I use where.

(Also, your sentence at the end should be 'Kvinnorna har på sig klänningar')


Yes, I found the syntax interesting. But what article does ariel mean? Sig is a reflexive pronoun... what exactly is that "på?"


On, so both pa sig and sig pa mean on him/herself. It is a more literal way of saying "wear": eg. I have on me a shoe.


sig på would be wrong, similar to “I’ve got a knife me with” (not “with me”)


Oh, I understand Ariel now. She was not talking about a grammatical article, but rather an article (a piece) of clothing. So I guess "på" is a preposition - on.


Yes 'på' is a preposition. In this case it means 'on', though it has other meanings too.


Have you had a chance to note which arrangement you use more? Is there a difference in your life between "hon har på sig skor" and "hon har skor på sig"?


If I am listing all items I wear at a time, I say

Jag har på mig tröja, byxor, strumpor och skor.

If I tell what I wear as alternative for clothing, I say

I dag har jag byxor på mig (men i går hade jag kjol).


Unfortunately not, since I'm not in Sweden right now. But looking at this sentence again I think I would use the second version. "Hon har på sig skor" sounds slightly unnatural. (Though it might sound more natural in different contexts!)


Yes is doing enphasis in this sentences.


Does this literally translate to "She has shoes on herself"?

If not, could someone explain what the "sig" is for at the end? I don't understand why you wouldn't just say "hon har skor på" (she has shoes on)


My attempt at explaining this:

In this sentence, is a preposition that needs a target (not the correct term, but you probably know what I mean). You can't just say . You need something. This something could be, fötterna, huvudet and so on. Or, as in this case, a more general sig. Here's a couple of sentences that tries to explain what I mean. Try to translate these and let me know if you understand.

  • Hon har skor
  • ~Hon har skor på~ (Incorrect, doesn't make sense)
  • Hon har skor på fötterna
  • Hon har skor på sig
  • Vad har hon på huvudet?
  • Vad har hon på fötterna?
  • Vad har hon på sig?

I should also add that this is different from a particle verb like "hälsa på" (visit), "vara på" (to be on (about light, computers, etc.)) where is a part of the verb and not a preposition.


Thanks a lot. That makes a ton of sense.

So sig just means herself/himself then? Like "Han har hatten på sig" would mean "He has the hat on himself?"


Yes, the literal translation is "him-/her-/itself". Note that if we are talking about you or me you have to use dig and mig respectively.

  • Jag har hatten på mig.
  • Du har hatten på dig.


In those verbs it's still a preposition, they just happen to be verbs which don't have prepositions when translated to English. Different languages use prepositions in different situations.


Are you sure about that? Do you have any sources? I'm curious because I'm not sure myself.

Yes is a preposition, when it's "free-standing", but it's more used like a complement to the verb in the case of "hälsa på", "hoppa på", "sätta på", etc. The point I was trying to make was that you shouldn't confuse "free-standing" prepositions and prepositions as a part of a verb.


In Polish there's an equivalent of "har på sig" - "mieć na sobie". It means exactly the same thing and the words are in the same order. In this phrase "na" (or "on" in English) is a complement to the verb and a preposition at the same time.


7 years later this has helped me, thank you


I still don't get the difference between "Hon har skor på sig" and "Hon har på sig skor"...


There is basically none. Don't worry about it.


But which one is more appropriate/accurate to say?


I'm a native speaker and still trying to figure out if there is a difference at all. I'm gonna go with my above comment from 10 months ago.

Unfortunately not, since I'm not in Sweden right now. But looking at this sentence again I think I would use the second version. "Hon har på sig skor" sounds slightly unnatural. (Though it might sound more natural in different contexts!)


I got confused now on why this wasnt correct: "she has shoes on her", since sig means her, herself.


Interesting - we often say "she has shoes on" or "a dress on" or "a jacket on" - but we omit the "her / him "etc


Does it make sense in English? I've never heard anyone say "She has shoes on her" meaning "She wears shoes".


She has shoes on her means she currently has shoes, but probably not on her feet. (So she's carrying them, or has them in a bag with her and so on)


Ok, I get what you mean. But, no, that's not the meaning of the Swedish sentence. It means that she's wearing them.


Why isn't "she has her shoes on" correct?


It doesn't say that it's her shoes anywhere. That would be "Hon har på sig sina skor.".


So why can't I use "hennes" instead of "sig"?


ha på sig is a reflexive verb. The reflexive particle changes with person, like this:
Jag har på mig 'I am wearing'
Du har på dig 'you are wearing'
Han/hon har på sig 'he/she is wearing'
Vi har på oss 'we are wearing'
Ni har på er 'you are wearing'
De har på sig 'they are wearing'

hennes is a possessive pronoun meaning 'her(s)'. It's used for ownership, not to make a verb reflexive:
Hon har på sig sin klänning 'She is wearing her dress' (her own)
Hon har på sig hennes klänning 'She is wearing her dress' (someone else's)


Why is it not "hon har pa sig skor"? She wears shoes, that to me makes sense


Both are equally acceptable in Swedish:

  • hon har skor på sig ("she has shoes on her")
  • hon har på sig skor ("she has on her shoes")


can't we say- ''hon pa sig skor''???


You need a verb. "She (HAS) on her shoes".


You should put the actual meaning in the black box. It's almoat like a saying and I made a mistake causr of it. Im sure im not the only one


Can you elaborate? What black box?


I think he's just saying that you should disregard the literal meaning of the sentence as it leads to confusion. Not black box like the engineering term.


Ahhhh, now I get it. It sounded to me like he was speaking about some UI element.


I think he was talking about a UI element because I'm thinking he was saying to put the actual meaning of the phrase in the on-hover suggestion box instead of the meanings of the individual words, because as I recall the latter used to be given. That's a pretty common complaint on certain sentences in every course.

Although that box isn't black, so I could easily be wrong.


What's the "på sig" for?


Please see my answer above. If it's unclear after reading the comments, please let me know.


I am all jumbled up between sig and dig. What is the difference between them ?


sig = himself/herself/itself dig = you


Hon har skor på sig. = She has shoes on herself. (She is wearing shoes.) Du har skor på dig. = You have shoes on you. (You are wearing shoes.)


what about "she has her shoes on"? can that work?


Not really - could be somebody else's.


Great discussion! I have another question - Is there a difference between “Hon har på sig inga skor” och “Hon har inga skor på sig” ?

I recently got this wrong and thought the placement of ‘skor’ didn’t matter. Does the ‘inga’ change this?


The former isn't actually grammatical. It's like the difference between these two in English:

  • She has no shoes on <- works
  • She has shoes no on <- doesn't work

So the "shoes" aren't really the issue, but rather the "on".


how am i supposed to know when to use "har pa sig" or "har po dig"?

  • dig is for the second person singular
  • sig is for the third person


I think "She has shoes on herself" would be acceptable because if we were to literally translate it, that's what it would come out as. It would also help people learn what "Har på sig" means. That's why I think BOTH are acceptable. Translation is flexible.


Literal translations aren't always good, though. That's the case here. "She has shoes on herself" isn't very good English.


Why wouldn't the sentence be "Hon har på sig skor"?


Both are fine, as noted above. :)


Which one is correct? - Hon har skor på sig. Or - Hon har på sig skor. And what is the difference? Please, somebody help me...


Both are fine, as noted above.


Why is "she is wearing shoes" wrong? The correct answer is "she wears shoes". Is there a tense distinction here?


Both are accepted, and neither is better than the other out of context. I've seen an increase of questions like yours lately, though, so I'm suspecting some bug is screwing up correct non-default translations at the moment.


I like that the recorded voice gives the option of speaking the way people actually speak in normal conversation vs speaking more slowly. Sometimes I just can't understand what is said, because the words seem to melt together ... so I have to use the slower voice. Problem is, people don't speak that slowly. This is my biggest challenge ... unless I can ask people in Sweden to speak slowly - Ha!


does it matter if "skor" is before "har på sig" or after "har på sig"? in previous lessons the har på sig was before the article of clothing. Looks like others have had the same question - sorry to be redundant, but does it really matter where the article of clothing is in the sentence?


It can go on either side, and it makes no difference for the meaning.


"Du har på dig" — is o'k. But... "Hon har på henne" — isn't o'k?!


You need the reflexive: Hon har på sig.


Is sig pronounced say?


As a rough approximation, yes.


To bad thats not how you've been teaching it???


Et pourquoi, she has (proposé) pour nous induire en erreur ??


"Hon har skor på sig". The word-for-word translation is "She has shoes on her".

This is the 1st case of the translation not being a direct word-for-word and instead translating to "She wears shoes".

Why is this the case?

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