"Flickan har på sig byxor."

Translation:The girl is wearing pants.

November 22, 2014

This discussion is locked.


If you want to say "The girl is wearing her pants" would you have to put an extra "sina"? "Flickan har på sig sina byxor." ?


To be clear, the 'pants' here is not referring to underwear is it?


Jag hoppas så (?)


jag hoppas det is better, though you'd be understood either way. :)


so, if byxor means pants, does byxa mean pant, as in pant leg (or anything for that matter?)


Yes. But it's rarely used.


In Berlin dialect (German) there is a word for pants that sounds almost the same: Buxen


Most likely both the Berlin word and the Swedish word derive from the same word in old Platt-Deutsch (the language used by the Hansa empire). Almost 40% of all Swedish words entered the Swedish language through trades with the Hansa empire and Hansa traders settling in the Swedish towns.


Not just there, far away from Berlin you can find it in different German regions, too. :-)


Ah, so 'byxor' is 'trousers'? Even though it sounds a lot like 'boxers' (i.e. boxer shorts = men's underpants)?


Yes. They have nothing to do with each other.


So, sig is not only used with han, hon, and de, right? More generally, is it used when referring to the third person?


Yes. Example: Katten skadade sig. (The cat hurt itself.)


Does byxor also refer to shorts or is it only for full pants?


It can, but usually you just use kortbyxor (lit. short pants) or shorts (pronounced as if it were spelt sjårts).


Ok, and "The girl's wearing trousers" is considered wrong??? Why???


That actually is accepted. If you were marked wrong for it, there was a bug. :/


I was marked wrong for that, yes. "You missed a space"... Used the website this time, as I wanted to be able to use the keyboard to write my own sentences instead of having to use the box words, so the bug has to be DL and not just the phone app.


Yep, definitely. It's something that can happen now and then for anyone, and nobody knows the cause as far as I'm aware. Luckily, it's pretty rare and easy to get around, but still annoying.

Still, there are plenty of similar cases where it's actually a missing translation or us having entered the info incorrectly. It's impossible to tell without checking the admin interface. :)


In Scottish trousers (US pants) are called breeks... Viking influence, some say.


Reminds me of (corduroy) breeches, perhaps they are related.


Does somebody else hear an "L" instead of "r" in byxor?


Nope, it's an "r", a very weak one. Some accents actually pronounce "r" as an approximant which is what you are hearing here.


I do not think it sounds like the approximant r here or in other examples with a final L. Because the approximant would sound kind of like an English R. - I often hear this final R as an L, too (böcker etc.), but it is just a flapped tongue tip R which is close to an L "by nature".


There's definitely an 'r' at the end of this audio example. It can be stronger (both the trilled frontal one and the thicker throaty one would normally be stronger), but you'll hear this version quite frequently on Swedish TV. In my native Swedish dialect the 'r' would actually be dropped completely in this example, with the final word sounding like "byxe" (/`bʏkˌsɛ/).


Why do some words end in either or ar or en


Perhaps the Tips and notes for plurals can come in handy here.


I wrote "The girl wears pant" and it shows the correct answer as "slacks". Why is thay?


That makes no sense. What you wrote is very obviously correct. Now, if you had a slight error and didn't realise, Duolingo will frequently show you another accepted translation than the one closest to what you wrote - perhaps that's what happened?


I wrote "the girl wears pants" and marked wrong, I guess must be a bug, the second in this category


I agree, that definitely sounds like a bug. It's obviously a great translation.


Does pants mean trousers here?


Its trousers, pants are what go underneath trousers.


The course is aimed at US English specifically, so "pants" is the default. We do accept "trousers" as well.


why isnt trousers accepted but when you hover over "byxorna" it shows both


We do accept "trousers" for all sentence variations accepting "pants".


Trousers should be accepted


It is. I can see you left an error report, which is very helpful. Your report says

The girl his wearing trousers

So you just accidentally wrote "his" instead of "is".


So, byxor is the plural of byxa? Or is there no singular for this word...


Well...... "byxa" is indeed the singular form and "byxor" is the plural form, but you very seldom encounter "byxa" nowadays. Most Swedes use "ett par byxor" (a pair of trousers) if they want to specify that it's only 1 pair of trousers (like "jag vill köpa ett par byxor" - I want to buy a pair of trousers) but you wear trousers (no need to specify that it's only 1 pair in Swedish). I know however that my mother sometimes use the singular form "byxa" when she's shopping ("Jag vill ha den byxan." - I want that pair of trousers), but I rarely encounter that form otherwise.

(It's possible that the use of "byxa" might be regional as well. I'm southwestern, but my mother grew up in the southeast. I really don't know if "byxa" might be used more frequently in the northern parts.)


OK, Tack så mycket.


The girl is wearing pants


If i wanted to say "are you wearing pants" would it be "har på sig du byxor


Of course not!

"Har du på dig byxor?"


OK that makes sense. Tack!


so it does not make a difference whether we put the object before or after "på sig" ?

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