"Har manden ikke sine bukser på?"

Translation:Does the man not wear his pants?

3 years ago

8 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/Sopzeh

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

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Marinia
Marinia
  • 15
  • 13
  • 8
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4

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

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Xneb
Xneb
Mod
  • 21
  • 20
  • 13
  • 12
  • 7

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

3 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/rem-bert

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.

2 years ago

https://www.duolingo.com/KathyKarch

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

6 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/KathyKarch

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

6 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Ali515832

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

5 months ago

https://www.duolingo.com/Geoff_Campbell

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

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