"Buksa er altfor lang."
Translation:The pants are far too long.
42 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I like how you make sure that we learn the difference between to and too in English, too.
Is "alt for" also acceptable? My Norwegian friend was confused about how this was a single word.
Although a lot of native Norwegians make that mistake, "alt for" isn't correct in this case. "Alt for" and "altfor" have two different meanings. "Alt for" literally means "all for", while "altfor" means "way too"
Can you just ttanslate this to "the pants are too long?" Or is the "way" necessary?
"Way", or similar, is necessary.
for = too
altfor = all too, way too, far too, altogether too, much too
Underbukser are what you wear under your pants in American or the Norwegian word for pants in English.
I put "... Are too much", the correction said "... Much too"... I always thought it was "too much"
You can say "too much" with a noun after it which gives the entire quantity as in "too much food", but when you have an adjective after it, this changes. You are describing "how long" which is "much too long". You could say "He is going much too fast." or "He has too much speed".
Hoou! Tusen takk! It's the first time I ever heard of this in years!
"The pants" (plural) should not be "buksene"? While "Buksa" would be "The pant"? Can somenone explain?
"Pants" is a tricky one, because they originally came in two pieces; one for each leg.
Of course they're now stitched together, forming a single garment, but it's still referred to as "pants" or "a pair of pants" in English.
In Norwegian you have the option of doing the same thing, using 'buksene' for a single pair of pants, but it's also common to use the "true" singular 'buksen' or 'buksa'.
Do you have a reference for pants originally coming in two pieces? I haven't been able to find one and I think it's a folk etymology.
Is there a difference between buksa and buksen in looks? Is one a woman's pant and one a man's? Or is it just that the word can have either masculine or feminine endings?
There's no literal difference in what the words describe; it's just a difference between feminine and masculine nouns.
"Trousers" in British English and "pants" in American English, but "pants" in British English means "panties" or "underwear" in American English.
to be fair, most people in the UK don't say "pants" people generally just say "underwear". It's one of those things particularly Americans associate with us (like saying "bloody" all the time) that isn't true in most cases.
You're bloody well right about that. ;-D
And let's not talk about napkins…
Thank you! I did not pay attention to the way that seemed. I didn't associate this with all British speakers, but some British speakers have complained about this on Duolingo and that is where I learned about this. My mistake was to refer to "The British" (people) and I am changing the statement to just include the facts.
Sam, du har laget bukser mine altfor lange.
(det er en veldig gammel sang)
Can't we say that altfor means "too" or "way too" instead of translating this as "much too" because it sounds off. It is possible to say it like this yes but it is not correct.
"Altfor" doesn't mean "too", that's just "for".
"Far too", "way too", "all too", "altogether too" and "entirely too" are all accepted.
489
For this kind of instance "Pants" is an americanisation. In English pants are the lower torso undergarment; "trousers are the external garment covering fro the waist to the ankle. I caution you not to get caught when in Britain or "caught with your trousers down" as the english expression goes!!!!
