"Dina byxor är inte rena."

Translation: Your pants are not clean.

[eykal]

Why yes, my trousers are not reindeer. Thanks for noticing.

[larsbangsimonsen]

The plural of 'ren' is 'renar'.

[AlbinoKiwi21]

Anyone else hear "v" rather than "d" on the "dina"
here? Might just be my poor ears ;-)

[nvrslps]

I'm hearing the same.

[AlbinoKiwi21]

I'm really stoked it's not just me :-)

[AaronGalea1]

I hear a V too 19/01/16

[Sasha395118]

Even more: I wrote "vina" and there was no error. Weird

[nunes89]

I hear a "b" lol

[Kenajabam]

Me too

[ChloeWReuben]

I hear it as well, but I usually hear the recordings wrong, haha.

[Ewan.yy]

same, I was wondering what the heck was a `vina´

[An19hp]

Same here!
So confusing...

[timmybravo]

sniff The smell check says otherwise.

[Reese367868]

Is Byxor translated as pants by american definition or british definition? Is it underwear or outerwear?

[nikkofir]

American not British. It really annoys me but there's more of them than us Brits. Saying 'your pants are not clean' to a British person is really not advisable unless they are still in nappies.

[yibemajam]

Hahaha nikkofir, tell them. The sentence has a whole different meaning in British English!

[GlennaJo]

At least it didn't translate to knickers. :-)

[oldestguru]

Well, that escalated quickly...

[Edwin558763]

Why my is rena being used and not ren. The adjective is after the noun and once the basic form is kept then ren should be used

[devalanteriel]

byxor is a plural form, so you still need the plural adjective form.

[Austin211825]

I thought byxor meant trousers?

[King2E4]

It does if you're from the UK. :)

[Caz896852]

I wrote trousers and it's not allowed it, insists on pants!

[devalanteriel]

We do accept "trousers", but we had several error reports for "the trousers" and "you trousers", so either you had a bug or a minor typo that the system didn't recognise.

[Fresh99012]

It seems I still don't get it. I thought this should be "ren". I understand the rules for when the adjective is before the noun, but isn't it different when it's not?

[sotnosen93]

It would be if it was a singular noun, but "byxor" is plural just like "trousers".

[TwentyOneN]

Isnt it your pants is clean?

[devalanteriel]

No, English uses the plural for pants, unless you say "a pair of pants".

[Grigor877060]

Underpants should have been accer

[devalanteriel]

No, byxor means trousers. Underpants would be underkläder.

[JYH6UtXB]

How is 'boxa' different from 'byxor?'

[devalanteriel]

boxa means to box, as in using your fists in a boxing ring.

There's also boxers, simply meaning boxer shorts, more specifically the kind of undergarments.

[Graeme722266]

The dictionary I have has trousers as längbyxor

[devalanteriel]

You probably mean långbyxor. You would only ever use that if you wanted to point out that you mean the opposite of shorts. It's very out of fashion, and was honestly never really in fashion.

[CedSgm7N]

So, do we use "ren" for en words and "rent" for ett words?

[devalanteriel]

Correct. And rena for plurals and definites.

[James704885]

I don't like the audio. It cuts out at times and seems to rush through some words while taking a long time to pronounce others.

[sandra173775]

Trousers=pants??? "Trousers" is not accepted