1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Flickan har på sig kläder."

"Flickan har sig kläder."

Translation:The girl wears clothes.

November 21, 2014



I wouldn't expect her not to...


Should then it be 'har inte på sig' or 'har på sig inte' or 'har på inte sig'? Is 'inte' going right after verb or we have to place at the last place?


It goes right after the verb, so it's har inte på sig.


Is there a time when "clothing" isn't "clothes"?


It might be wrong so please correct me. 'Clothing' would translate to 'klädsel' or 'beklädnad' and used in a more formal way to describe an entire outfit or type of clothes. Examples: At a funeral one should wear dark 'klädsel'. I need to wash some 'kläder'

'Klädsel' can mean some other things like seat cover but it is not relevant here.


In English we'd say such a thing was an outfit or ensemble, but the context - formal or otherwise - wouldn't distinguish between clothes and clothing.


Not to nitpick, but I typically don't hear people say everyday phrases in English like "I need to wash some clothing" or "I like your clothing" -- in these situations it would be much more common to use "clothes".

Edit: Ah, after scrolling down I see someone has mentioned that this might be a difference between US English and UK English. I was wondering about that myself.


As a native speaker of US English with a lot of experience using other Englishes, I use these two words interchangeably and have never noticed a situation where one could be preferred over the other. The only difference is clothing is singular, whereas clothes is plural.


I wouldn't say they're entirely interchangeable. You would say 'I wear clothes' but not 'I wear clothing'. And you would say to someone 'Put some clothes on' but not 'Put some clothing on'. Clothing sounds quite unnatural in those circumstances.


I disagree entirely; all four of your example sentences sound completely natural to me.


Maybe it's a UK-US difference, then.


This might just be me, but I usually only hear "clothing" in more formal situations.


@Brian: Over three years old by now. :)


I can't tell how old this post is, but, as a native US English speaker, all of those examples sound fine to me with either 'clothes' or 'clothing'


so i know that "har på sig" means "to wear," but would a direct translation/further dissection of the words be "have on him/her/them"? like "he has on him clothes."


Yes, he has on himself clothes.


I would often say in English "She has X on her" etc which is how I remember it.


'he has his closes on'


No, that would be Han har sina kläder på sig. sig is a reflexive pronoun that points back to him, like "himself", whereas sina is a possessive pronoun that tells us who owns the clothes.


The literal translation of Han har på sig kläder, is He has on his [own] clothes. But the actual translation is He is wearing clothes.


No, the literal translation would be He has on himself clothes. sig is a reflexive pronoun that points back to him, not a possessive pronoun referring to the clothes.


Why do I don't say "She is wearing her clothes." as it is saying sig?


har på sig is a reflexive particle verb meaning 'wear'. The particle is always stressed, and the reflexive sig changes with person. 'She is wearing her clothes' would be Hon har på sig sina kläder in Swedish.


Everybody wants to mix up ‘sig’ with ‘sin’ in these comments.


Can har på sig be translated word for word to have a similar, but slightly different meaning? "Has on her"? Or is the entire thing just "wears"/"is wearing"?




What is the meaning of sig? I'm almost done with the "clothes" section and just now I'm noticing that it hadn't been introduced before.

It seem similar to the reflexive possessive pronouns sin, sitt and sina. What is the difference? Is it used independently of whether a word is singular common, singular neuter or plural? Would the literal translation of Flickan har på sig kläder. be "The girl has on her clothes"?


It's more like "the girl has clothes on her". Sig is a reflexive pronoun, but it's not possessive, so it's closer to the meaning of "herself" in this case. She has them on herself, ie she's wearing them.

As far as I understand, sig is the third person reflexive pronoun for both plural and singular, but I'd need someone to back me up on that.

Edit: Arnauti has a good explanation on this thread.


what is the singular of kläder? And whatever it is, is it ever useful?


You can say ett klädesplagg. But no, it isn't a very useful word. If you want to say it, you could also just say ett plagg instead, so that's what most people would do :)


So what is ett plagg? You can't really have a cloth in english, so what would it mean in swedish?


It's like 'an item of clothing'.


So is it always "har på sig" for when talking about a noun? So...
Hunden har på sig...
Katten har på sig...
Barnet har på sig...?
Thanks! =]


Yes, if the subject is a third person, "sig" is used.


Just a little confused, when I see the "har" I want to translate the sentence like "the girl has.." but when har is followed by "pa sig" that's when it changes to "is wearing"? Not sure if I'm picking this up right


Har på sig is an idiomatic expression that means "to wear." You can think of it as "the girl has clothes on herself," since that would be the literal, word-for-word translation. English has tons of idioms with "have" as well.


What do you do if you want to specify that the girl is wearing her clothes?


You just add the reflexive pronoun: Flickan har sina kläder på sig, or Flickan har på sig sina kläder.


Can I also say "Hunden har på sig kläder" if we don't know the gender of the dog?


I just realized that "kläder" begins the same way that "klänning" does, I suppose there is a common root to those two words? I'd love to know more, if someone has an idea ^^ Tack!


Yup! It used to be klädning - so it basically works the same way that English went from "cloth" to "clothing", except that we also got e.g. klänning, kläder, and klädesplagg out of it. :)


Oh tack for your fast answer ! So the root would be "kläd-" as in "cloth-", did I get that right? Do the suffixes bear a specific meaning too or are they just word construction? (sorry if i'm unclear, i'm french and my english is not always the best ^^") What is "klädesplagg" though? First time I see that one!


Yes, exactly like that.

-ning is an affix that creates a noun out of a verb. The verb is kläda in this case, which means to dress - i.e. to cover in clothes. The same goes for English -ing plus the verb clothe.

klädesplagg simply means article of clothing. So a shirt is a klädesplagg, a pair of trousers are a klädesplagg, etc. Today, plagg is essentially synymous with klädesplagg. It used to mean something different a long time ago.


Tack så mycket! I love learning how a language works too so this is super interesting! Have a lingot ;)


Why is "kläder" in this sentence at the end? Could it also be after "har"? Like "en kostym" in the sentence "Kvinnan har en kostym på sig."


Either way is perfectly fine. :)


I got this: "The girl is wearing garments" I have never used this word before, do you?


Why is ' is wearing clothes' not right?


"The girl is wearing clothes" is also correct.


I always want to write this one out literally - "the girl has on herself clothes" - but that's not accepted :(

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