"Hon har inga skor på sig."
Translation:She is not wearing any shoes.
26 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Is it correct to say "Hon har inte på sig skor"? What's the difference between inte and inga?
What is the PREFERRED order (to a native speaker) of "har på sig" for MOST of Sweden? This way (broken up which makes me really lost and not realize someone is wearing something until the end of the sentence then I have to go back over it and re-translate from "has/have x" to "wears x") or written out as "har på sig" before everything else (aka wherever the har is supposed to be)? I keep seeing it both ways and obviously my preference is seeing it all together so I KNOW we're talking about someone wearing something but what about the average Swede?
Average Swede here. I'd say that when "på sig" comes after the garment (the broken up way), it puts more focus on the garment. When it comes before (the "together" way), it puts more focus on the person. So it depends on context and what you want to stress. In positive sentences, where someone is wearing something, I'd say both are equally common. In negative sentences, where someone isn't wearing something, the broken up way is more common because it's usually more natural to focus on the missing garment. But if you want more of a "wow, look at this lady, no shoes, can you believe it?" then "hon har inte på sig skor" is more natural in that case.
Also, instead of backtracking to "wearing X", maybe it's helpful to parse it as "has X on"?
She has no shoes to wear = Hon har inga skor att ha(/ta) på sig.
More literal translations would be She wears no shoes, or She has no shoes on but in this case I don't think there's a one-to-one correspondence between the languages, so various answers should be accepted here.