"Hon har inga skor på sig."

Translation:She is not wearing any shoes.

December 12, 2014

This discussion is locked.

[deactivated user]

    Is it correct to say "Hon har inte på sig skor"? What's the difference between inte and inga?


    Yes, that is also correct.

    Inte means not and is used to negate verbs.

    Inga (& inget/ingen) means no and is used to negate nouns.

    So, choosing between them is like asking yourself if you want to say that she does not have shoes on or that she has no shoes on.

    [deactivated user]

      tack så mycket!


      Wow, that's really comprehensive!


      Thanks a lot , you really make it easy


      Is "She has no shoes on her(self)" not correct?


      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"?


      I said, "She has no shoes to wear" which was incorrect. How would I say that (to know the difference). I guess I'm still a little confused about på sig. Or is it that the presence of inga negate the sentence?


      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.


      But if inga means no and negates the noun and inte means not and negates the verb, why is my answer: 'she is wearing NO shoes' marked as incorrect and i am told it has to be 'she is NOT wearing shoes'?


      The machine tells me that is an accepted answer, so I'm not sure what might have happened.


      Hm, ok. So maybe I had a typo anywhere...


      Can you say "Hon har pa sig inga skor?"


      I wrote " she has no shoes" and it's right for them.


      Is it allowed to say "Hon har på sig skör inga"?


      A few more explanations like this and I could have a chance to really learn Swedish...


      Could this also be 'she has not got any shoes on'? I put this as my answer but it came up as incorrect.


      "She has no shoes on her" - In the russian-english course, a word-by-word ttanslations are accepted but not in the English-Swedish, why not?


      "She has no shoes on" isnt correct?


      I mean I think it is, its perfectly good english and closer in structure to the swedish phrase...


      How about “she wears no shoes”?


      how would i write "She has no shoes to wear"?


      She is not wearing any shoes

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