"Hon har inga egna barn."

Translation:She has no children of her own.

December 16, 2014

This discussion is locked.


It might be an english problem, but why is "She has no own children." wrog?


That is not an acceptable English sentence.


And yet it's now accepted while "she has no children" is not...


That's because it leaves out a word from the Swedish translation and back-translates to just "Hon har inga barn".


I don’t think it’s totally wrong, though.


why not "she has none of her own children?


That sounds like she has children, but doesn't happen to have any of them with her.


The other correct answer has the same problem though: "She doesn't have her own children".


I'm not sure, but in my head "She has none of her own children" would be something like "Hon har ingen av sina egna barn" or "Hon har inte sina egna barn." Maybe a native speaker could clear this up for us.


Thing is I'm not 100% clear what She has none of her own children means. I feel there's a difference between that and She has no children of her own which is the suggested translation, but I can't pinpoint it.


Hope this doesn't confuse things further:

She has none of her own children: She is seen with some children, which aren't her own. But she is a mother.

She has no children of her own: She is not a mother.


Then I'd rather say Hon har inte med sig något av sina egna barn.


She has none of her own children means exactly the same thing as She has no children of her own. Both are common ways of expressing the same thought in the UK.


Why is 'inga' used instead of 'inte'?


”Inga” means ”no” whereas ”inte” means ”not”.


Why is "she has no children of her own" wrong?


Why is "she has no child of her own" incorrect?


"She doesn't have own children." has the same meaning in my opinion. Shouldn't that be accepted?


That doesn't make sense in english.


You need the her in English, just the way that works. Your sentence is understandable, but not grammatical.


Is "She has no her own children." wrong?


That sentence is not correct English.


Why is there no possessive pronoun here? Seems like it needs sina in there.


Because this sentence doesn't require a possessive in Swedish. It literally translates to "She has no own children". The English translation was most likely chosen because it sounds more natural, not because it's a literal translation.


Audio is horrible at normal speed


what is wrong with: "she has no own children"?


English requires a possessive adjective with own in constructions like this. We have to specify who the ":own" actually is. In this case, English native speakers have to learn NOT to put the possessive adjective, my instinct would be to say Hon har inga sina egna barn. (I think this has been explained several times above in the discussion.) .


ok thank you so much! ( i am not native english ...)


Can’t you say ‘Hon har inte (sina) egna barn.’?


inga egna is surprisingly hard to say when I'm rattling off the whole sentence. For good or ill though, the voice recognition software didn't notice that I really said inga enga... but boy did I sound derpy to my own ears.

I wonder how many other times I've screwed up something badly and got marked correct anyway?


All quibbles aside-- SURPRISE! New words.

[deactivated user]

    Why she has no children is wrong??!!


    She doesn't have her own children OR She has no children OR She doesn't have kids. Should be correct answers. The option what is offered here makes the horrible example of sentence composition in English. If you say they in public, locals surely will be laughing


    Since "she doesn't have any children" was marked as incorrect, how would you translate "she doesn't have any children" to Swedish?

    Is it important that "of her own" is indicated in the original sentence, as if to say she could still have children but they aren't her own; ie she could potentially have adopted children, and that the possibility must be communicated?

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