Because it’s his (own) dogs (sina hundar) rather than his (someone else’s) dogs (hans hundar).
They're the same, meaning belonging to the subject. The only difference is that they need to agree with their object.
Use sin for singular en nouns, sitt for singular ett nouns, and sina for plurals: sin hund, sina hundar; sitt barn (sing), sina barn (pl). They are the third person reflexive possessive pronouns, if you want to get technical. They are the possessive forms of sig (which comes in later lessons), and analogous to min, mitt, and minas.
So sin/sitt/sina is for when you're reffering to the subject, and hans/hennes is for when you're reffering to someone else, right? I'm not sure, please help me out
So can sin/sitt/sina be used with any person as long as it points back to that same person (subject)?
Any third person, yes, whether singular och plural.
Jag tycker om mina hundar, du tycker om dina hundar och han eller hon tycker om sina hundar.
Vi tycker om våra hundar, ni tycker om era hundar och de tycker om sina hundar.
That would be Han tycker om hennes hundar. sin only points back to the subject.
Because he has several dogs. It could be 'Han tycker om sin hund' if he would only have one.
Sin is for singular en-word
Sitt is for singular ett-word
Sina can be both for en or ett word when there is several ones
Hope this helped :)
I chose 'her', because I thought 'sina' usually refers to 'her', but it said it was incorrect. What did I do wrong
sina points back to something owned by the subject of the sentence. If the subject is han, sina will mean his in English; if the subject is hon, sina will mean her; if the subject is de, sina will mean their.
Sina refers to a plural word. Sin or sitt would refer to a singular word. So "Han tycker om sin hund." but "Han tycker om sina hundar.".
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I was getting frustrated and now it finally makes sense. Yay!
Because barn doesn't pluralize the same way hund does or most words do. Check the notes for the plural lessons online.
Can you tell me if i want to search it by google to learn this " sin,sitt,sina "
Om on its own means if or around. But the verb tycka om means to like. Tycka on its own, without the om, is a whole other verb meaning to have an opinion, to think.
Can sin, sitt, and sina stand on their own? We've only seen examples where they precede the object. For example, would the correct translation of "He knows that the dogs are his" be "Han vet att hundarna är sina"? Thanks!
"sin points back to the subject of the sentence; since it's he in this case it can only be his dogs, not her dogs"
This was a really good pointer - clarified the entire thing for me, now I'm breezing through this section.
Sina is for plurals right? I chose sin because it only "him" not "them" or "we". So does that mean since it is sina I should be looking at the dogs which give me plurals since there are multiple dogs?
Correct! "Sin/sitt/sina" is the same in 3rd person singular and plural:
"He/she likes his/her dogs" = "Han/hon tycker om sina hundar"
"They like their dogs" = "De tycker om sina hundar"
Earlier on in this course I've been able to use the word "hound" instead of "dog." But this sentence is the first one that doesn't accept "hounds". Je suis desole.
Can someone explain me in very simple words why is it "sin hund" and "sina hundar", what is the difference in sin and sina
Hounds is only a subcategory of dogs in modern English (large dogs used for hunting). Because of this 'hound' is not really synonymous with 'dog' and I guess it's not accepted because of this even if it has the same origin as 'hund' in Swedish. I can't imagine any native English speaker telling that they have for example a Chihuahua hound (even if this would've been normal a couple hundred years ago).