"She is wearing her nice dress."
Translation:Hon har på sig sin fina klänning.
24 Comments
I don't understand why it's "fina" rather than "fin" here if there's only one dress. Isn't the "-a" at the end generally for plurals?
-a is used for plurals, and for definites when described by an adjective. Nouns after an -s or possessive pronoun (i.e. owned by another) are treated as were they definite.
1012
Is there a difference between the meanings of "Hon har på sig sin fina klänning" and "Hon har sin fina klänning på sig?"
Warranting a guess, would the equivalents be, "She has on her fine dress," and, "She has her fine dress on"?
Good question. "Sin" is reflexive and refers to her own dress. "Hennes" would refer to another female's dress. I'm guessing one could use either as a correct translation since there is ambiguity in the English. A native/fluent speaker should provide a clearer answer though. :)
thanks for commenting but i am still a little confused. I though Sin-Sit and sina could be OPTIONAL but your comment tells me there are some obligations here because when Sin/sit/ sinna are applicable we cannot use hennes/ hans and deras anymore. is my understanding correct?
- 881
Yes, they are not optional. If the dress belongs to her, you must say sin klänning, and if it belongs to someone else, it has got to be hennes. English is ambiguous in these cases, Swedish is not.
Not really., fin is more about simple beauty/elegance in this case, while snygg is more like handsome, good-looking, or possibly hot.
Can I get more explanation about it? changind the places of these words confused me
There's not difference between the two sentences, it works both ways. It's basically the same sentence but reworded.
The nice dress - Den fina klanningen Her nice dress - Sin fina klanning So... When you are refering to someones thing you dont add the final thing?
Correct! Possessive pronouns trigger the definite of the adjective, but not of the noun. Saying sin fina klänningen would be like saying "her nice the dress" in English.
