"Han har på sig en vit tröja."

Translation:He is wearing a white sweater.

January 9, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Why does Vitt become Vit in this sentence?


Because tröja is an en-word.


Is there a difference of pronounciation between "vit" and "vitt"?


vit - /vi:t/ vitt - /vit:/


He has on him a white sweater? Is that the literal translation cause it says I'm wrong


literally yes. is your translation gramatically correct? yes. would one say that in english? no because it's wordy.


You could say "He has a white sweater on him", but almost everyone I know would using the "is wearing" phrase instead.


No English speaker from this part of the world would keep the him. "He has a white sweater on" is the way people would say it


But this isn't an English lesson so the literal translation (which helps to remember how the swedes say it) shold be acceptable.


In Canada, the "on him" usage is dying out in favour of "is wearing" or "is carrying" (especially among non-native speakers), but it's not at all unusual to hear someone say "Does he have his phone on him?" I've heard this usage far and wide, in both Canada and the US, and I've read it a lot in books. That being said, I've also heard the variant without him, especially in American speech.

But you know what they say: a preposition is the wrong thing to end a sentence with. :)


To this English speaker, asking if he has his "phone on him" or his "gym-clothes on him" sounds like you are asking if he is carrying them, not wearing them. Much the same as "on his person". "Does he have his clothes on", without the "him" gives me a clearly separate meaning.


Hum... a second ago I was like: Ouuups! I translated it as Shirt and not Sweater! Then it was accepted.... it shouldn't be, right?


Some English native speakers, especially in the US, use shirt to cover more or less anything worn on the upper body, so we have to accept that translation. In the stricter sense, shirt is only skjorta though. (Those people may call that 'a dress shirt' or 'a button up').

Also, Duo's policy against profanity is that we shouldn't use it at all here, not even with stars or abbreviations, so please edit your comment if you can.


Thanks as always Arnauti! In french we kind of have that to, it's more likely to happen in a familliar setting, you would sometime hear the word Haut used to talk about any clothing you could wear on your torso. (genre: J'aime bien ton haut; c'est sympas comme haut; J'ai vu un haut trop bizarre l'autre jour...)

Anyway I will avoid those mistakes in the future. ^^


Thank you! There's a similar word in Swedish, en topp, which is about anything worn on the upper body, but as far as I know it's only used about women's clothing.


I answered vest, and was wrong. I was given the answer "jersey" which I suppose is slightly different than vest, but then came here to see "sweater" which sounds even more different than jersey.


Accepted versions are sweater/sweatshirt/jumper/shirt/pullover/jersey.
A vest normally has no sleeves and is called en väst in Swedish.
The best answer is sweater.


Thanks, I now understand. The 'jerseys' I'm familiar with are sleeveless basketball jerseys which led me to be confused on how that resembled a sweater.


So vit is used just for en words? Is vita used for plural words? And vitt for et?


Would it be correct to say "Han haren vit tröja på sig." ?


No. Haren means "the hare" as in the hoppy animal that isn't a bunny.

[deactivated user]

    Troja means sweater or shirt??


    Sweater, even though they accept shirt also in this exercise, to be lenient.


    I can't hear en when listening in normal speed


    Anyone else having Roméo Void in their ears now?


    It's just refused to accept "He is wearing a white jumper", which is correct in British English - we know what sweater means, but it's used much less than jumper.


    I put "He wears a white jumper" and it was accepted as correct.


    Missing a word in the Swedish verbal sentence.


    Can someone explain to me why sometimes the grammar is "har [thing they're wearing] på sig" and other times it's "har på sig [thing they're wearing]"?


    I am French and only learning sweeden as beginner but from what i have understood (and read in other explanations) both are correct. It seems har på sig (...) would be a little bit more 'natural' than har (...) på sig but both are used and are correct.

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