1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "De har på sig hattar."

"De har sig hattar."

Translation:They wear hats.

March 6, 2015



is "har på sig" something like "have on"?


The first time I saw this I thought it said "have on to" so I guess it is, but I don't really understand the "sig" part of the phrase. Could someone please clarify?


Literally it is have on themselves. har på sig is a reflexive particle verb. The particle is always stressed, and the reflexive pronoun changes with person:
jag har på mig I wear
du har på dig you (singular) wear
han/hon har på sig he/she wears
vi har på oss we wear
ni har på er you (plural) wear
de har på sig they wear


Shouldn't "They have on them hats" be accepted as an alternative or is that too far field?


Where would i put the "inte" negation? "Jag har på mig inte hattarna." ?


I believe that inte should go after the verb and before the particle (Jag har inte på mig hattarna/I do not have on myself the hats). Similarly, when it is a question, the subject and the actual verb (har/have) is switched (Har du på dig hattarna?/Are you wearing the hats?)

By the way, I'm curious of the situation in which you'd need to declare you're not wearing hats


To a blind person?


Michael990548 is right, you'd have to put inte after the verb.


But what if your mother dresses you? Hon har på dig ...a pjs with bunnies on it.


The literal translation is "They have on themselves hats". For some reason (i'm not a linguist so i'm not sure why) they have to add "mig", "sig", "dig", etc. sort of like French reflexives. (again i'm not really sure, but i've just gotten used to "sig" and "mig") This probably didn't help


Why is the pronoun "de" pronounced as "dom"?


That's just how that word is pronounced. Same with "Dem", which is also pronounced as "Dom".


Yeah, Duolingo should explain stuff like that.


Academia Cervena as made a video on the subject. It is in Swedish, but has English subtitles.



Would "they have their hats on" be a valid translation


Does the word order matter? I would have espected "de har hattar på sig". Is that possible as well or is there a rule I fail to understand?


Genuinely curious, but why is 'They are wearing hats.' incorrect here? I get that it's more specific than the Swedish, but without further context either should technically be valid unless I'm missing some special rule here involving reflexive verbs in Swedish.


This is so confusing


Now we know it's definitely not Men Without Hats.


I was hoping for hats to be "hatter" and not "hattar". Then it would have aligned with "katt" and "katter".


Read more about plural forms here: https://www.duolingo.com/skill/sv/Plurals
For en words ending in a consonant, it can be either -ar or -er, those are different declensions that have to be learned together with the word.


Would "they are not wearing hats" be "de har inte på sig hattar," or "de har på sig inte hattar"?


it would be "de har inte på sig hattar". The 'not' goes after the verb, "har", but before the particle, "på".


Why not " ar pa sig"? With the Har instead of ar, it sounds like "They have wearing". Why is that? :S


Maybe I am a bit nitpicky but I prefer more exact translations rather than the simplified ones. I have to mouse over each word and discern a more apples to apples translation is "they have on themselves hats." Yes, we would say "they wear hats" but there's only one way to tell what each word means.


Why it's not " De har pa DEM hats"?



The reason is that it needs to be reflexive. They are wearing the hats themselves and not on other people.

De har på sig hattar - They are wearing hats themselves, all is well.

De har på dem hattar - Oh, no! They are wearing hats on other people! Chaos!!! Dogs befriend cats, and the streets run red with ketchup! (Also, it sounds weird).


Why is it "they wear hats", instead of "they have on hats"? Am i missing something important


I think "har på sig" is like a collection of words that means "wear" instead of each individual words having their own meaning. But "sig" can be "mig" for describing oneself. I found this out in some other comment section.


That's not how English expresses it. At best you could say in English "they have hats on". Translation between languages is not a matter of doing it word-for-word.


So is there a clear explanation on why the word order is like that?


Should be also valid "The are wearing hats" in some other taks the "-ing" is valid, am I wrong?


I think your error was leaving off the Y in "They." Since "the" is a different word, it would count as an error, not just a typo.


I like to just say bär instead of har på sig,

As well as gillar instead of tycker om, although duo doesnt like gillar very much...


So if I understand correctly, in Swedish " har på" is kept together like this. This is interesting because I've already done the Danish course, and Danes would move the "på" to the end (and also don't use the reflexive "sig").


They are wearing hats. Seems to be more appropriate here, because har på sig seems to imply that it is currently happening. Whereas saying "they wear hats" could be a general statement, like "they wear hats, when they go outside" , even though they may not be wearing them right now.

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