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.
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.
Yes, I'm wondering about the "on" too.
Sorry, this can't possibly be translated with lightning bolt "on"... you at least need to include "it" or just leave it out.
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.
Am I the only one who thinks Mrs Weasley got Harry Potter such a sweater one Christmas?
Why is lightning instead of lightning bolt not ok?
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...
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.)
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)
Thanks Dang-Vinh for starting the discussion and thanks Andr16065 for answering, another thing learned today!