1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Danish
  4. >
  5. "Har manden ikke sine bukser …

"Har manden ikke sine bukser på?"

Translation:Does the man not wear his pants?

January 8, 2015



Is the man not wearing his pants? Wouldn't that be okay too??


Again the translation is awkward English. Would "Hasn't the man got his pants on?" be better?


"Does the man not wear his pants" is not really something we would say in English. We would say "isn't he wearing his pants?" , or "doesn't he have his pants on?". even "is the man not wearing his pants?"..the other way is clunky


What does it mean by "pants"? I'm guessing boxers due to the similar sound, also underwear. Would both of these be accepted?


Bukser generally means trousers in English and if you are talking about underwear you'd rather use the word undertøj.


Adding on to that, there is also the word underbukser which can mean boxers (or briefs)


I suspect the boxer as underwear has a different origin than the boxer as trouser. The boxer as underwear originates from the boxing shorts (as in sports shorts). The Dutch Achterhook dialect (a Dutch low saxon dialect) also has a similar sounding word for trousers: boksen. I guess Bukser and boksen have the same Saxon origin whereas boxer has a totally different origin. Quite confusing indeed.


"Does the man not wear his pants?" The dang dog ate em


I offered the translation of: Does the man not have his own pants on? Is this an incorrect translation?


Second time around, I offered: Does the man not wear his own pants? Is this also an incorrect translation?


Maybe the addition of 'own' just isn't added to the list of correct translations. But yes I think these are both correct translations


Sir, that is highly inappropriate

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