"Jag har på mig en tröja med en blixt på."

Translation: I am wearing a sweater with a lightning bolt on it.

[RossGee1]

While I get there is "på", in English on is seldom included. It's obvious the lighting bolt is on the sweater one is wearing.

[BretHudson]

I'd say either drop the "on" all together, or say "on it" instead (which is accepted, but not the recommended answer). The preposition without an object is very odd.

[dcl520863]

Yes, I'm wondering about the "on" too.

[thoscorco]

Sorry, this can't possibly be translated with lightning bolt "on"... you at least need to include "it" or just leave it out.

[EkorrenFlyger]

I (American) could easily imagine my Australian relatives saying "with a lightning bolt on" but yeah I agree with you at least as regards American English.

[itamar2x]

Am I the only one who thinks Mrs Weasley got Harry Potter such a sweater one Christmas?

[KaatCallew]

Why is lightning instead of lightning bolt not ok?

[LaraJovicic]

I don't know, I had the same problem. Maybe they want to be more precise or sth but I think it should be accepted because in everyday speech everyone says just lightning...

[Dang-Vinh]

Would this rephrasing be grammatical? "Jag har på mig en tröja på vilken står en blixt."

(To be clear, I am not asking for it to be accepted as a direct translation.)

[Andruoduo]

great thinking and really advanced, but not quite there yet. For some reason S needs an additional 'det' between the 'vilken' and the verb. And 'står' sounds really odd here. 'finns' works in any case instead. (native)

[dcl520863]

Thanks Dang-Vinh for starting the discussion and thanks Andr16065 for answering, another thing learned today!