1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Nej, man får inte gifta sig …

"Nej, man får inte gifta sig med två personer samtidigt."

Translation:No, one is not allowed to get married to two people at the same time.

March 26, 2015



"No one is not allowed" is a double negation. The translation should be "no one is allowed


The sentence is "no, one is not allowed ..." but Duolingo apparently removes non-alphanumerics at times.


Would this mean polygamy or is it just referring to the wedding ceremony


Either could work, although the sentence feels a bit awkward if referring to polygamy. That'd be better as nej, man får inte vara gift med [be married to] två personer samtidigt.


I don't like to contradict the previous answer but this definitely sounds like a polygamy situation. The sentence refers to getting married, not a priest marrying off different couples at the same time. The key is in "gifta sig".


To be honest, I can't remember exactly what I was thinking, as my comment is over four years old. But I would assume the question was about whether this meant being married to two people, or getting married to two people, with polygamy meaning the former. Of course, I agree with everything you said as well.


is there really a difference between 'one is not allowed' (Duolingo accepts) and 'one is not permitted' (rejected by Duolingo)?


Not in this case, at least. I'll add it. We already had 97 accepted translations - now, they're 121. :)


can "få inte" mean "may not?"


Yup, sure can.


tack för din tid. i was marked wrong, perhaps i made another mistake. i am more interested in clarifying than right/wrong.


Hard to tell for certain. We do accept about twenty different translations with "may not", but it's very possible that we've missed some.


"No, one may not be married to two people at the same time" Any reason this shouldn't work?


gifta sig is the act of wedding, not the state of being married - the latter would be vara gift.


This really is silly - nobody would try to go to church with two brides or grooms at the same time. The intended meaning just cannot be this!


Of course it's silly, but that's what the phrase means.


No, it's not silly .. it happens whether you like it or not, even with the willing consent of all parties .. I'm pretty sure there are polyamorous couples, probably also in Sweden, who want to get married legally in one ceremony.

Polygamy has been banned from western culture for good reasons, but on the other hand it restricts freedom, which restricts thinking, which is perfectly natural, so I won't call that silly.


I'm not calling polyamory silly. I have polyamorous friends. I'm calling the notion of somebody going to a Swedish wedding ceremony with the intent of marrying two people at the same time silly, because obviously it doesn't happen since it's illegal. :)


"No, one cannot get married with two persons at the same time" is a wrong translation? :/

Edit: Yes, it is, in case anyone has the same mistake, the idiomatic way in English is "get married to two persons", so... well... now I know :D


to is indeed the correct preposition. :)


The comma makes all the difference in the world in this sentance. "No, one" makes sense, "no one" makes it a double negative.


Not yet. You can't marry a child yet either. Or a toaster.

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