1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "The trousers are too small."

"The trousers are too small."

Translation:Byxorna är för små.

March 13, 2015

22 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/caro557377

why not Byxorna är för liten?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/caro557377

ok I got it.... after doing my research here on duolingo... so liten is singular and sma is plural.....


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Nathalie866349

Byxorna is plural, and plural needs små.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/martino260

Why is för lilla not accepted?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Arnauti

To be more specific, lilla is only used before a definite noun in the singular.

boken är liten 'the book is small'
huset är litet 'the house is small'
de är små 'they are small'

en liten bok 'a small book'
ett litet hus 'a small house'
små böcker 'small books'

den lilla boken 'the small book'
det lilla huset 'the small house'
de små husen 'the small houses'


[deactivated user]

    I'm having some slight confusion regarding how Swedish refers to a single pair of pants. (I've come across "en byxa" before.)

    Does Swedish refer to pants as English does, where we say "pants" (plural) to mean one pair? eg. byxor = pants like in English (one pair)? But also byxor = multiple pairs of pants? (eg. "Did you see all the pants they had on sale?")

    If that is the case, what exactly does "en byxa" mean? Is "byxan" a word that is ever used?


    https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Arnauti

    Generally we use byxor just like you use 'pants' in English. But it's also possible to say en byxa in the singular, meaning 'a pair of pants'. Personally I don't really use this word but I don't tend to talk a lot about clothes in the first place. It's certainly a word you can see in clothing stores, fashion blogs etc. I did a corpus search and got 1,671 byxa vs 31,828 byxor which feels reasonable – byxor is overwhelmingly more common, but there's nothing wrong with byxa either.


    [deactivated user]

      Thank you so much for this.

      So it's basically:

      byxor = pants (one pair)

      byxor = pants (multiple pairs)

      byxorna = the pants (one pair)

      byxorna = the pants (multiple pairs)

      ?

      And then en byxa/byxan are ok to use too, but much less common. (I apologize for being a bit pedantic about this, I think when I was studying French it messed me up for other languages with regard to pants lol.)


      https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Arnauti

      Yes, exactly! From the point of view of English/French I think Swedish is ideal, since you can say it either way in Swedish :)


      https://www.duolingo.com/profile/SebaTinonis

      but in both cases en liten bok & den lilla boken the noun is after liten & lilla. so is it the same to say en liten bok or den lilla boken?


      https://www.duolingo.com/profile/NiloofarKa1

      because I think the plural of lite is små


      https://www.duolingo.com/profile/guillermo497845

      Why not "alltför" instead of "för"? Why isn't one as good as the other?


      https://www.duolingo.com/profile/bakitgulpieter

      why not byxorna ar pa sma


      https://www.duolingo.com/profile/devalanteriel

      That would mean "the trousers are on small".


      https://www.duolingo.com/profile/GarrettHer2

      I don't think I've said the word "trousers" even once lol


      [deactivated user]

        I never hear Australians say trousers either. Everyone says pants here.


        https://www.duolingo.com/profile/DerpyApples

        What if you mix tor and björn


        https://www.duolingo.com/profile/VictorErla2

        smala is a word like they are too small here

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