"The pants are available in red and black."

Translation:Byxorna finns i rött och svart.

January 9, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Varför inte "i röda och svarta"?


Rött and svart are here the names of the colours rather than adjectives describing the pants.


But the dictionary form is röd, not rött. Why is the neuter form used here?


The dictionary form of the adjective is röd, but the dictionary form of the noun is rött. So it's the noun form here.


Excuse me if I sound dense, but I'm still confused; if you could break this down for me in layman's terms - I'd really appreciate it, as my knowledge of grammatical terminology is weak. Thank you in advance!


The colour*s name is "rött". So the answer to "Vad är din favoritfärg?" (What's your favourite colour?) would be "Rött". When it describes an -en-word it becomes an adjective and turns into "röd". When it describes an -et-word, it becomes (or remains) "rött".


Are all the names of the colours in the neuter form? Just to get an idea when I need to use the name of the colours


Yes, that's the case. Svart, rött, grönt, blått, gult ...


but it is "en farg" is it? not ett farg? (still a bit confused)


En färg is correct


Good question, as the icons of paint pouring out seem to represent the adjective form?


Why won't "Byxorna finns det i rött och svart" do?


Good question! The reason is that this kind of det never goes together with definite nouns. The simplest way of seeing it may be by comparing how "There are the pants in the shop" doesn't work for saying what "There are pants in the shop" says.

Another way of explaining it is that det in expressions like det finns is used precisely because the pants or whatever aren't known to the listener (and this is the same reason why we don't use den in these sentences).

det finns en bok på golvet 'there's a book on the floor' – the book isn't known to the listener, so the sentence needs det as a placeholder because while en bok ligger på golvet 'a book is lying on the floor' is totally correct, it isn't a good sentence from the point of view of how we want to speak: it feels odd to start a sentence with a totally unknown book. We want to start out by informing the listener that there is a book.

boken ligger på golvet 'the book is on the floor' - when the book is known, it becomes definite and we don't need the det anymore. Since the listener knows what book I'm talking about, it's natural to let it go first in the sentence if I want to.


Thank you very much for such a detailed answer! Somehow I'm only reading it now, but better late than never, right? :D

This makes sense, I was trying to compare it to German "es gibt", you see (which is of course not exactly the same).

Thanks again and have a great day!


Would "Det finns byxorna i rött och svart" be possible? Thanks ...


Perhaps "Det finns byxor i rött och svart", but then you'd be answering a question about the availability of pants in general and not regarding a specific model.


It would be useful if a less ambiguous word was used instead of "pants" given how regionally dependant it is. Trousers, slacks or something similar might avoid confusion


I thought: what is the difference between pants and trousers anyway? What is confusing about it? Aren't those just british vs american synonyms?

Then I found out that pants are underwear in regions where trousers are pants :)))

I didn't know the word slacks.

Did they reject trousers ?


das habe ich noch nicht gelernt, also rott soll die Farbe sein...


Where is the “are” shouldn’t it be “ar” I’m confused.


In case of -a-words the indefinite plural is -or (byxa->byxor). And the definite form gets -na in the end: byxorna


And the "är is included in "finns" which already means "is/are available".


Thank you I didn’t realise Finns included the is/are.


I wonder if we should use ''finns'' as a verb in Swedish, i see that ''är'' doesn't fit the sentence.


It would be really difficult not to use finns. While it IS possible to circumnavigate it, it is very unpractical. You would have to say something like “byxorna tillhandahålls i rött och svart” and that would even change the meaning of the sentence from the black and red trousers’ bare existence to their availability in just that store…


Why is it not "röda" and "svarta"? Byxorna is a plural.


Look at Lundgrens explanation a bit longer up. Rött and svart are the names of the colours, they are not used in the adjective form in this sentence but in the noun form.


I saw that comment but did not understand it. So, it is only -d or -a for red, in this case, iff the noun and the colour are linked? Like den röda tallriken?


Exactly right. Or ”Affären säljer röda och svarta byxor”

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