1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Ingen rök utan eld"

"Ingen rök utan eld"

Translation:No smoke without fire

January 23, 2015



Since I understand that some people are using this course to improve their English, the idiomatic equivalent in English is "where there's smoke, there's fire."


I have heard "no smoke without fire" as well.


I guess that Spanish is the only one who is weird... We say "cuando el río suena, agua lleva" (it means "when the river sounds, is because it has water")


In Italian we don'y even have such a proverb if I'm not mistaken. Btw in Spanish there should also be "donde fuego se hace, humo sale".


well, from where I'm from (south Italy) we say "non c'è fumo senza arrosto", "there is no smoke without roast"...we love food...:D


We have a funny one which is similar to the Italian "Molto fumo e poco arrosto" which goes Mycket skrik för lite ull literally 'Much screaming for little wool'. The continuation is usually not said, but it's like this: sa bonden när han klippte grisen 'said the farmer when he sheared the pig' [sheared as in 'cut its hair off like you do with a sheep']. – The English version of that would be 'much ado about nothing'


Well, I have never heard it in this way, good to know! I just knew "Molto fumo e poco arrosto" ("A lot of words, but few facts").


Interesting: i'm italian too (from the north) and as yellow_card i've only ever heard "molto fumo e poco arrosto". I guess we are improving italian too :)


In portuguese it would be "Onde há fumaça, há fogo" -> "Where there is smoke, there is fire"


Where is it 'agua lleva'? I have only heard 'piedras trae'.


I've never heard the "piedras trae" one :/


There is such a saying in Russian, also: Нет дыма без огня (no smoke without fire, literally).


The same in Polish: "Nie ma dymu bez ognia."


Since everyone is posting the translation in their language. I'll post the Dutch equalifent too.

'Waar rook is, is vuur.' Where (there) is smoke, (there) is fire.


In German: Wo Rauch ist, ist auch Feuer


Yes, "There's no smoke without fire" also - which was marked incorrect due to literal grammar I suppose. Think I'll report it.

  • 1193

And in Chinese we say "no waves without wind" :)


Wow, this is the one I liked the most, thanks for sharing :D


Amazed at all the upvotes for the comment at the top of this thread. I wouldn't call that an idiomatic English expression. I'm native speaker but never heard it expressed that way. It's much more common to say "no smoke without fire" as the person below pointed out , and as here in the lesson .


One is primarily American, one is primarily British. Both are incredibly common. If you said your prefered version in the wrong place, I don't think people would assume you weren't a native speaker - so perhaps that should go the other way as well? :)

Source: see e.g. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/where-there-s-smoke-there-s-fire


Well having lived here all my life I never heard anyone say where there's smoke there's fire. Only ever "no smoke without fire". Believe me the former is an idiom nobody ever uses in the UK . All those upvotes must be from Americans then :)


I believe you when you say that noone around you uses that. But it's really easy to prove you wrong. I found hits in the UK all over the place - and sure, often "no smoke without fire" is more common, but they're both in frequent use.


That doesn't prove me wrong. In real life people wouldn't say it that way in the UK even if it's found online. Lots of hits online maybe and it's a dictionary entry but it's not necessarily used much in real life here that way. People here just don't say it that way and never did. But it doesn't matter that much. The initial poster is probably an American who never heard the idiom said the other way as we say it here. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Americans and Brits are two peoples divided by a common language. Something like that anyway :)


I meant in real-life usage, not in dictionaries, but yes, that's the expression. :)


'Where there's smoke, there's fire.'

This must be an Americanism because I've rarely, if ever, heard someone say it that way. It sounds like you've adopted the 'where there's a will, there's a way' format when there is already a 'better' idiom.

Generally outside the US (I assume, at least in my experience), the expression is, 'there is no smoke without fire'. But it wouldn't sound odd to drop the 'there is' as the Swedish does here. I wonder can we use 'det finns' or would that sound odd?

Also: I don't think I've ever heard anyone on American TV use your idiomatic equivalent. It sounds fine, but where I'm from, I'd probably think, 'oh, you mean, there's no smoke without fire'. I also wonder if there are any subtle differences in usage.


in hungarian: "Nincsen füst tűz nélkül" and it means no smoke without fire as well :)


Il n'y a pas de fumée sans feu !


"Nie ma dymu bez ognia" in Polish.


Ateş olmayan yerden duman çıkmaz (in turkish)


Nėra dūmų be ugnies Lithuanian the same meaning


In Latvian this sounds "Nav dūmu bez uguns" (There is no smoke without fire)


in romanian there is "Nu iese fum fără foc" (no smoke coming out without fire)


Adding to the translations, in Hebrew: אין עשן בלי אש. (literally, "there is no smoke without fire")


In Kent's song Kungen är död they say "ingen eld utan rök"...


In Turkish "Ateş olmayan yerden duman çıkmaz".


When does utan become without and when is utan but?


Utan means "but" in constructions like inte X utan Y (Jag åker inte till Spanien, utan till Frankrike.


Well, in greek it is: Δεν υπάρχει καπνός χωρίς φωτιά (Smoke doesn't exist without fire).


Can ingenting roker utan eld be accepted? Here is utan used the way I knew.


ingenting means "nothing" rather than "no", röker means to smoke as in smoking e.g. a pipe or a cigarette. So you're saying that nothing smokes [a cigarette] without fire.



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