1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Du har på dig en jacka."

"Du har dig en jacka."

Translation:You are wearing a jacket.

December 27, 2014


  • 2003

So if I want to say "we are wearing a jacket" then would it be "Vi har på oss en jacka"?


Yes, that's right.


How would one differentiate between "We are wearing the same jacket" and "We are both wearing a jacket"?


Vi har samma jacka på oss - Vi har på oss samma jacka - Vi är klädda i samma jacka. Or do you mean similar/ likadan. It is quite difficult for 2 persons to wear the same cloth: Vi har likadana jackor på oss - etc and plural "likadana jackor"

Vi har båda jacka på oss - Vi är båda klädda i jacka


Yes, but surely you mean that all of you are wearing a jacket, so the real sentence would be:

"Vi har på oss jackor", or "vi har jacka på oss"


I think it would be "Vi har på dig (oss/en) jacka"


The reflexive pronoun changes with the person, so it's
jag har på mig
du har på dig
han/hon har på sig
vi har på oss
ni har på er
de har på sig


Tack så mycket! That really helps!


My bad ! Tack :)


Why is there no den/det har på sig?


Didn't think that was necessary since a) they work the same as han/hon, b) den/det rarely wear things. But you're right that if they do, it's den/det har på sig, so the third line could read han/hon/hen/den/det har på sig.


You wear your feathers and shield quite proudly :-) Thank you!


What does "hen" mean in this context?


If an owl wears anything, you could certainly use den :D


@qixyl hen is the new gender neutral pronoun which has become pretty widespread just these last few years. Details here: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/15916853


Vi har på oss våra jackar (directly translated as...we have on us our jackets, meaning "we wear/are wearing jackets" in english (right)? Please correct me if I'm at all wrong...


Omg thanks god exist the comunity help..


I thought it would be "you have your jacket on" since it has both Du and dig. Why is dig not counted as "your"?


”Dig” is the object pronoun ’you’. ”Your” is ”din”. The entire verb is ”har på dig” which means ’you wear’ but literally ’have on yourself’. ”You are wearing your jacket” would be ”Du har på dig din jacka.”


Ah, I think I understand now, thanks!


Doesn't this mean "you have on yourself a jacket"? Even if the most common way to say it in English is "you're wearing a jacket", that's not the literal translation.


Yes, that's the literal translation.


I literally translated "Du har på dig en jacka" to "You have on you a jacket. DuoLingo says that's wrong and it should be translated as "You have on you one jacket". I reckon if the latter is correct, my translation should also be correct.


The machine tells me neither of these are accepted answers. I think that's how it should be, since I think it sounds too awkward in English. If anyone gets You have on you one jacket as a suggested answer, I'd like to see a screenshot of that so I can report it to tech staff.


i have the screenshot that you want but idk how to show you, it does not let me post it. you can talk to me later and i give it to you


Hi, you can upload it to some image service such as imgur.com and then post the link here. Thanks!

[deactivated user]

    It never got fixed. I got the same mistake.


    I have the same problem


    Why...? You have on you a jacket? Why are there two you's? If it wasn't en jacka maybe it's make sense. But why the double? Is it just how it is? I tried you have on your jacket, but that's wrong. Would it be wrong of me to just use "Du har pa en jacka?" if so, why?


    Yes, the verb ha på sig means wear, it's a reflexive particle verb. is a particle which means it's always stressed; you can't skip it. The reflexive pronoun changes with person:

    jag har på mig
    du har på dig
    han/hon har på sig
    vi har på oss
    ni har på er
    de har på sig


    Isn't that verbal phrase a bit like "have put on your" = "you are wearing"....If not, that's probably how I'll remember it anyway :-)


    So, just because I like trying to break things, if you mix the pronouns up- like, "Han har på dig en jacka" - would that mean anything at all, or would it just be total nonsense?


    If you wanted to say that "He has your jacket on.", you would have to say "Han har på sig din jacka." You cannot skip the object pronoun for this verb which always reflects back to the subject.


    Replies above indicate that would be "han/hon har på sig" because it's reflexive the word changes, it's on himself not on yourself.... with your sentence. so sig rather than dig. ... or so I understand it at this point.


    Hi. I have a question that might help me out a lot: Since one of the definitions for is "on" and har is "have/has", can we say that Du har på dig en jacka. translates to "You have on you a jacket"? If I tried to input this as an answer, would it be wrong?

    This is more helpful to me than memorizing each version of the sentence for each respective crowd. If I want to talk about clothes that someone is wearing, can I use the following format: pronoun--have/has--on--objective pronoun--thing ?


    We try to avoid accepting things that sound too odd in English, and as far as I can tell, you have on you a jacket is too unnatural. We do accept You have a jacket on and You have on a jacket which are things that native speakers could possibly say in some contexts.

    Literally it does mean that, but we don't accept literal translations unless they are natural too. Anything we accept will be shown as 'another correct answer' and it annoys other users when we accept things that sound too odd.


    It's strange to me. It is asking to translate "You are wearing" but the translation is "Du har pa" and not "Du ar pa" (sorry, don't have the funny signs in this keyboard).

    Could someone do the literal translation of har pa please? I know that "har" is "have", but what about "pa"? I know it then is different, it's just easier to memorize if I understand where they come from :)


    can mean different things, like most prepositions can, but broadly it means 'on' - so, reading it very literally, 'you have on you a jacket'.


    I had typed the translation as "You have a jacket on you", which seems the literal meaning, and got it wrong.


    Literal isn't necessarily more right.


    Interestingly, the literal meaning "have a jacket on you" is as same as "wearing a jacket". But anyway, I think it is more of the way a language is used. What I can understand is Swedish language does not have the exact word for "to wear".


    There is "vara klädd i" almost "to be wearing". Du är klädd i en jacka


    Like, "It's too hot to be wearing a jacket?"

    [deactivated user]

      Where is the verb in this sentence?


      "HAR" is the "predikat" (see Note) in presens of att ha = to have, "DU" is the subject, "JACKA" is the object and "PÅ DIG" is "an adverbial" (see Note) telling where the object is, that it is on the "DU"

      Note: Grammar terms in Swedish

      • ORDKLASS = classes of words: substantiv/e, adje-ktiv/ctive, verb, adverb

      • *Satsdel = parts of a sentence: subje-kt/-ct; obje-kt/ct (= substantiv), attribut/e (= adjektiv), predi-kat/-cate (=verb), adverbial (= adverb)


      I'm afraid this is incorrect.

      på dig is usually a prepositional phrase, not an adverb, but in this case the whole verb is ha på sig - it's a reflexive particle verb, and all three words are parts of it.


      Thanks! I remembered vaguely "rumsadverbial" telling where things are. Apparently I made a mistake


      That is correct, but adverbial and adverb are two different things. :)


      They are the same thing but belong to different "areas" of grammar. Thanks to you I have now corrected my analysis of the sentence so that it consequently uses (grammar) parts of a sentence/ satsdelar

      [deactivated user]

        No worries... :)

        [deactivated user]

          Thank you for the clarification.

          [deactivated user]

            Tack! You've made learning Swedish much easier!


            If I want to say I am wearing a jacket Should I say : Jag har på mig en jacka OR Jag har på en jacka?


            på mig is a lot better. I'd probably prefer Jag har en jacka på mig, myself.


            So, let me get this straight- Literally, this translates into: You have on yourself a jacket. It's a bit wordy but it helps me to understand the syntax a bit. Is that right?


            Quite correct. :)


            Why is the literal translation, "You have on yourself a jacket." not accepted? Is it because the correct answer is translating the common expression to the common expression in the other language?


            Exactly. All translations should be in idiomatic English.


            "You have on you a jacket"

            (makes sense to me)




            Is "har" supposed to be pronounced as "harr"? Previously it's been pronounced as "horr".


            Yes, broadly speaking.


            Literally it is "You have on you a jacket".


            It's more like "You have on yourself a jacket", but yeah.


            hhhhhh it's just you wear a jacket or you're wearing a jacket....har på dig here is equivalent to are wearing if I'm not wrong


            Hi guys, am I the only one who expected dig to be pronounced as "dej" and doesn't understand why it is not?


            Dig should be pronounced like the English word day (or, as you wrote dej.) I clicked the speaker icon at the top of the page, and it sounds right to me. Maybe they corrected it?


            Does that (literally translated) mean something like "You have put a jacket on yourself"?


            På is like pe in Romanian, which also means on ! This literally means "You have on yourself" which makes sense in Romanian too xD


            Hi does anybody here know how to send lingots? I went to the duolingo website and it said to look for the "send lingots button underneath the comment, but ots not there


            what is the difference between 'har på dig' and 'har på sig' ?

            • dig is for you (singular)
            • sig is for him / her / it


            I am wondering the difference between the following two sentences. Are these both correct? Du har en jacka på dig Du har på dig en jacka


            Yes, they're completely synonymous.


            So, maybe this is a bit esoteric, but is "Du" also used at the beginning of sentences as a means of addressing a person? Like, if someone was about to try to open the bathroom door and a person standing by the door addressed that person with "Du, det finns någon I badrummet." I was watching a movie recently and it seemed like at least one of the characters kept starting sentences in this way when she faced the character she was speaking with; she seemed to start her sentences with "du." Thoughts?


            Yes, that's very common. I wouldn't necessarily call it starting a sentence, perhaps - it's more of a way of getting attention, or just a filler. But you've clearly understood the point of it.


            Why not "du har en jacka på dig"?


            That's also fine.


            "You have a jacket on you." that's logical actually. Or, helpful for remembering the correct translation in Swedish.


            It looks like "I have myself wear a jacket." (Literally) in English.


            No, literally it is "I have on me a jacket.". but we would not use an object pronoun in English and we would just say "I have on a jacket." or "I have a jacket on." which are both accepted by Duolingo. You need to translate the whole verbal phrase "har på + Swedish object pronoun" as "wear"or "wears".


            Thanks!! :) That helps.


            Can we also say Du tar på dig en jacka. tar instead of har?


            No, ta på sig is to put on something, not to wear.


            its just weird how the "you" comes in twice


            It doesn't, really. The second one is more like "yourself".


            Yeah nevermind, i've been re-reading up on other topics, i get it now, atleast sort of... :)


            now what is the difference between you are wearing a jacket and you have a jacket on you?


            would it be wrong if one were to say "Du på en jacka" in a daily language ?


            Yes, that's wrong and could easily be misunderstood.

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