"He is not wearing the clothes."

Translation: Han har ikke tøjet på.

[_Mewtu_]

freedom

[Brandonauto]

have 69 lingots XD

[danielefua]

why "tøjet" and not "tøjerne"? Just a guess: if the subject was plural "de" then I would use "tøjerne"?

[RuciGluci]

tøj is both singular and plural. Think of it as english clothes. And you have to use tøjet because it's a definite noun (the clothes)

[ra.mrn]

My humble contribution 》Edited and retracted because here below lies the correct explanation by DragonNights, please read that one! :)

[DragonNights]

While "-erne" is part of the grammatics, if you talk about "tøj" in the sense of clothing that you wear, we do not use the plural definite ending. You will sound really weird if you say "tøjerne", when talking about pieces of clothing.
(https://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=t%C3%B8j, under number 1, grammatik, you will see it says "uden pluralis"/without plural)

Using "tøjet" as a definite is the same as saying "the clothes"

Sidenote: "tøjerne" can and will be seen as part of other words like "optøjerne" (the riots), "køretøjerne" (the vehicles), "værktøjerne" (the tools, though rarely when talking about physical tools) etc.

[ra.mrn]

Thank you SO MUCH, DragonNights, this was very instructive and insightful! I'll be more careful while doing my research and also am going to correct my notes. And you also got yourself a new follower. :')

[purdiewhitedove]

I think it's more 'clothing' than clothes.

[Brandonauto]

why though its rude not to wear clothes

[ElaineFWoods]

Not in Denmark

[SanthellSa]

Har ingen tøj på er det samme som ikke tøj på

[PaulMoffett]

Why not klæderne?

[deactivated user]

Because no one uses the word "klæder". It is very formal/antique. The only use of it that I can think of is in the title of the fairy tale "Kejserens nye klæder".

[Faizyrooma4]

Yeah, that makes sense