"I am taking my clothes off."
Translation:Jag tar av mig kläderna.
I am a little confused. Wouldn't the english translate into "Jag tar av mina kläderna"? Because 'mig' is making me the object and 'mina' shows possession. Or can you use either mig or mina?
The entire verb is, as torg says att ta av sig (to take off oneself). Then you change it after person to become jag tar av mig (I take off myself) and then you add kläderna (the clothes). Swedish often prefers a definite form where English prefers a possessive. So therefore there is no possessive pronoun in the Swedish sentence. Read more about it here.
Hi, I have a question, according to your explanation if I want to say something like "I take off your clothes" it would be Jag tar av dig kläderna, is that correct? Thanks.
Except if you are wearing someone else's clothes, then it could be "jag tar av mig dina kläder" right?
So, essentially, Swedish prefers to say "I take my clothes off me" whereas English prefers "I take off my clothes", word order change notwithstanding.
Is that correct?
It is so. And the opposite is also true. "Jag har på mig kläderna." literally translates to "I have on me the clothes." :)
I'm not authorized to say whether it's OK or not but I got to the same conclusion. If we tried to translate literally word by word, the "my" is what seems to be missing in the sentence in Swedish.
"Jag tar av mina kläderna" is plain wrong. 'Mig' og 'Mina' can not be interchanged. For a unit by unit translation: "jag - tar av mig - kläderna" -> "I - doff - the clothes". I don't know enough grammar to understand the details, but I'm norwegian and this part of the grammar is the same in my language.
Can you help me understand the differences between Jag tar av mig kläderna and jag tar av mina kläder? The second makes more sense to me but I'm focusing on kläderna translating to the clothes.
It's more idiomatic to use the definite form than a possessive in Swedish, when talking about something where the ownership is obvious, like your clothes or body parts. Read more about this here: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/6014446
Jag tar av mina kläder sounds like a bad translation from English, since you use the possessive instead of the definite and also skip the reflexive pronoun, which should be there when you're undressing yourself. So Jag tar av mig mina kläder would be at least a little better. Since Swedish and English are so close, and Swedish speakers are exposed to a lot of English, you can see these constructions sometimes from native speakers, but if you want to sound idiomatic you should avoid them.
The sentences mean roughly the same, but "kläderna" = the clothes, while "kläder" = (some) clothes.
Jag tar av mig kläderna = I take off the clothes, jag tar av mina kläder = I take off my clothes
Because the English version was "I was taking my clothes off", automatically I chose the word order to be "Jag tar kläderna av mig", which turned out to be wrong. Does it mean that in a statement an object cannot separate a verb and its required preposition or is it just a case of "sounding better this way"? I am just wondering whether this wrong order might be justified by a different emphasis, like "jag tar kläderna av dig, men inte av mig."
It's not that the particle can never go after the object (av is a particle here, always stressed), but it usually doesn't. Unfortunately this seems to vary with different verbs. So I don't accept your sentence, I think it's awkward at best. I'd prefer to change it completely and say Jag klär av dig men inte mig 'I undress you but not me' instead, but otherwise Jag tar av dig kläderna, men inte mig or something like that.
So I suspect that kläderna cannot move with ta av sig, but with ha på sig there are different possibilities: both Hon har på sig en hatt and Hon har en hatt på sig ('She is wearing a hat') work, and in the latter case the object does indeed go between the verb and its particle.
I see, so placing the object can indeed be flexible, depending on the verb. Though, if I understand correctly, it is not very common. I guess, since it's an expression that is always used in the same way, it's understandable that you can't mess with this one. Good examples and a clear explanation, as always. Thank you for taking the time!
Sorry, forget the last one. I meant "jag tar kläderna av mig". Is it also a good one?
No. That means "I take the clothes from me", sounding like you're stealing them from yourself.
why does 'av' change from 'off' to 'from' when the sentence is structured like that?
I've seen two different responses that are apparently correct.
Jag tar av mig kläderna = I take off myself the clothes (literal translation).
Jag tar av mig mina kläder = I take off myself my clothes (literal translation).
Which one of these is better to use? Also, are there any other sentence examples in which this structure is used?
If i am taking of your clothes of me (it was raining and you borrowed them to me) would it then be "jag tar av mig dina kläderna"?
Think I'll quit for the day and try something easier later! I haven't got one right yet. ARGH!!!!
Man, don't quit right now. Talk about taking your clothes off is the most important thing, in any language.
Why isn't it "Jag tar minA kläderna AV? so why not "mina" and why is av not on the end of the sentence?
In Swedish, we literally say "I take off me the clothes" and "I put on me the clothes". Some phrasal verbs don't allow the preposition to get away from the verb. As Zmrzlina said above, "Jag tar kläderna av mig" sounds like "I take the clothes from myself". And remember that it's "Mina kläder" not "mina kläderna" which would mean "my the clothes".
I answered ''Jag tar av mina klader'' (sorry, can't find the umlaut for klader) and it was accepted! As I understood it, ''tar av mig/dig, etc..is a fixed phrase for taking one's clothes off, no? How come my answer was accepted then? Are both options correct then? As in, mean the same thing and are actually used that way and not just ''acceptable, but noone ever says that'' ;), if you know what I mean. Thank you!
why is "kladerna" and no "klader"? it says "clothes" not "the clothes"