1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Norwegian (Bokmål)
  4. >
  5. "Jeg har på meg sko."

"Jeg har meg sko."

Translation:I am wearing shoes.

June 4, 2015



Why is it not "skoer" instead of "sko"? Cause even though it is a monosyllabic word, it is masculine and not neuter


This one is just irregular, a special snowflake. :)


All snowflakes are special - unique geometry. xd


If ALL are special, then none are. ;-)


Just out of interest, is this the only way to construct "I have X on" or would it be possible to say "Jeg har sko på"?

I haven't tried it, trying to stick to what the contributors have deemed the best translation for it, but it's just out of curiosity.. and the fact that that's how it's said in Danish and I have a strong feeling if I ever try to speak Norwegian away from Duolingo this is how it would come out.

Edit: After progressing further through the course I see that I will need to set the Norwegian way of saying it into my head


How would this sentence be written in singular form (for instance, putting one shoe on)? "I am wearing a shoe". I know it may not sound natural, but I'm still rather curious :P


"Jeg har på meg en/én sko."


I've met many people with one leg so I think whether or not is sounds natural is relative.


Is it possible to say: "Jeg har sko på meg."?


Does "I have put on shoes" work? If not, how would you say that?


"Jeg har tatt på meg sko."


If "sko" is both "shoes" and "shoe", surely "I am wearing my shoe" (singular) should be correct, no?


No, the original sentence says nothing about the shoes' owner, so you'd have to add the possessive "my" to convey that meaning.

Even though sko's indefinite singular and plural forms are identical, "my shoe" and "my shoes" are distinguishable from each other in that the form of the possessive differs:

Jeg har på meg min sko = I am wearing my shoe.
Jeg har på meg mine sko = I am wearing my shoes.

Hope this helps! :)


How would I say: "I've lost my right/left side shoe"?


"Jeg har mistet [den høyre skoen min/høyreskoen min/min høyre sko]."


Isn't "sk" supposed to be pronounced as "sh"?


No, not normally. "Norsk" is pronounced "norshk" because of the R + S combination.


Oh, okay. But what about "sko" in "Jeg har pa my sko."?

I couldn't put the little circle over the 'a' in "pa" because I don't have it on my keyboard.

  • it's just sko. No "sh" sound.
  • you can write paa meg (see: meg) instead in written conversation. (å = aa, ø = oe, æ = ae) Still, Duolingo doesn't accept those variants in the course.


You can simply write regular "a". I do that all the time when I'm feeling lazy; bjornen, etc...

Duo will tell you made a typo, but still count it as a correct answer. :D


For åll your ås on å Måc it's: OPTION + a


Would you need to add "min" for it to be "I am wearing my shoes"?


Yes, basically... you would have to use "mine" since "shoes" is plural. Either "jeg har på meg mine sko" or "jeg har på meg skoene mine".


Why are both "meg" and "mine" necessary? Am I correct in translating it/thinking of it as "meg = on myself" and "mine = my" so "Jeg har på [meg] mine sko = I have my shoes on [myself]" Would "Jeg har på mine sko" (I have on my shoes/I have my shoes on) be completely incorrect? Thank you!


Hey Gilligan, from what I've understood so far, "Jeg har på mine sko" is incorrect in Norwegian only because they prefer the use of the reflexive, so saying "I have my shoes on", while fine in English, needs to be "I have my shoes on myself" in Norwegian. This is also why "Jeg har på sko" is not ok, because in Norwegian "I have on shoes" is not correct, replaced with "Jeg har på meg sko" (I have shoes on myself).


This really helped me picture this all (and future sentences) out, thank you.


The first is necessary, the second optional. They transmit different pieces of information.

The 'meg' is the reflexive pronoun for the 'jeg' conjugation of the verb. You need it to complete the verb. It has to agree with who is doing the wearing. e.g. Jeg har på meg = I am wearing; Du har på deg = you are wearing. The conjugation isn't complete without it.

In some languages omitting the reflexive pronoun changes the meaning of the verb. In French: J'appelle Marie vs Je m'appelle Marie I call Marie vs I call myself Marie.

The 'mine' relates to the noun. Including it provides an (optional) extra detail, showing whose shoes are being worn. This could be different from the person wearing them. e.g. Jeg har på meg dine sko = I am wearing your shoes; Du har på deg skoene mine = you are wearing my shoes.


Thanks for the detailed answer!


I have put on my shoes is incorrect although the sentense is the same, right?


No, not the same. That would be "jeg har tatt på meg sko."


Tatt meaning? Quick search shows this to mean something like taking/taken. Just curious to see where it fits in.


Yeah I guess literally it translates to "I have taken shoes onto myself". It's just the way that you say "I have put on shoes" in Norwegian. Sorry - I can't really come up with a better explanation than that, maybe someone else can :(


Tusen Takk, for explaining, its sufficient to know how its meant to be, and how it fits in, why - is kinda too ingrained in the language itself.


where is the 'seg' ?? >> Jeg har på seg meg sko


"Seg" is the reflexive pronoun for the third person singular (han/hun/den/det). The first person singular uses "meg", which is present in this sentence.


Gracias por contestar siempre tan rápido :D


I am wondering how to say "I am wearing the shoes" (instead of just wearing shoes). I cannot find the answer in this thread or elsewhere


"Jeg har på meg skoene."


how does it work then to say "I have shoes with me" ? (Not wearing them, carrying them with you) Whats the difference there?


"Jeg har med meg sko."


Wouldn't it be "I am wearing my shoes?"


No, that would be Jeg har på meg mine sko / Jeg har på meg skoene mine.

The original sentence does not mention the owner of the shoes, so you have to insert the possessive mine ("my"). See the replies to TBlaise's comment on this page for a really nice discussion about this. :-)


Why is it not "jeg har sko på meg"?


You can say it that way as well.


Please remember to check the thread before posting. TeemuLabura asked this question earlier ;-) That way the discussion remains compact and useable. Thank you in advance.


This is bizzare, why is 'meg' even there?

The answer (words I could use) was "I am wearing shoes."

Can this also be translated to "I have on me shoe." Out of curiousity.


I'd regurgitate what the above questions and answers have already said, but I think the experts explained it best so I'll let you look there :)

Learn Norwegian (Bokmål) in just 5 minutes a day. For free.