Swedish: Pojken kan redan klä (på) sig själv.

[dimhollow]

Hej på alla!

"The boy can already dress himself."
I translated this English sentence into Swedish, as in the title:
1. "Pojken kan redan klä sig själv."
2. "Pojken kan redan klä sig på själv."

My question is: is there any difference whether I use the particle "på" or not?

It's all plain enough and quite simple, but i'd like to make sure
I haven't inadvertently got it wrong all the same.
Thank you!

 

[FluentSpeakerNot]

I think the second sentence sounds better if you swap the order of "sig" and "på".
"Pojken kan redan klä på sig själv."

In the second sentence it sounds like you're saying that the boy can put on his clothes by himself. He doesn't need his mother or someone else to help him.

The first sentence might be interpreted as if he knows how to "dress", like choosing what clothes are appropriate for the occasion, but I wouldn't rule out the other meaning (context would be important).

 

[dimhollow]

I think the second sentence sounds better if you swap the order of "sig" and "på".
"Pojken kan redan klä på sig själv."

In the second sentence it sounds like you're saying that the boy can put on his clothes by himself. He doesn't need his mother or someone else to help him.

The first sentence might be interpreted as if he knows how to "dress", like choosing what clothes are appropriate for the occasion, but I wouldn't rule out the other meaning (context would be important).

Thank you so much, FluentSpeakerNot, for the quick reply.
Yes probably på puts the emphasis in the sentence on the boy's autonomy (på -sig själv-)
while in leaving the particle out we have this emphasis on the act of dressing/putting clothes on.

One last question though: What would you rather say more often, do you think?

 

[FluentSpeakerNot]

No, that wasn't exactly how I meant. Sorry If I'm being unclear.

Yes probably på puts the emphasis in the sentence on the boy's autonomy (på -sig själv-)

"Klä" is related to the word "kläder" which means "clothes".
"på" means "on".
So "klä på" essentially means "put clothes on".

The word "sig" specifies whom the clothes are put on.
The word "själv" is referring back to the boy, and means that he's doing it "by himself".

"Pojken kan klä på sig själv."
"The boy can put clothes on himself, by himself"

"Pojken kan klä på sin syster själv."
"The boy can put clothes on his sister by himself"

while in leaving the particle out we have this emphasis on the act of dressing/putting clothes on.

I think when we leave out "på" we putt less emphasis on how the clothes are put on.


When we talk about how somone is dressed we normally leave out "på".

"Han klär sig så fint" normally means I think he has nice clothes on.
"Han klär på sig så fint" might sound like it is the act of putting clothes on that I think looks nice.


If I think a sweater looks nice on you I can say that it "klär dig".

"Tröjan klär dig" - The sweater looks nice on you.
"Tröjan klär på dig" - I guess this could work in some situations, if you get the stress right, otherwise it might sound like the sweater is helping you getting dressed which is wierd.


When we "dress" an object, by decorating it or putting something over it, we seldom use "på" (sometimes we use other prepositions).

"Klä julgranen"
"Decorate the Christmas tree"

"Klä på julgranen" is not idiomatic.

One last question though: What would you rather say more often, do you think?

It depends on what I was trying to say. In your example I would use the second sentence ("Pojken kan redan klä på sig själv.") assuming I mean he is able to put his clothes on by himself. I have a hard time imagining a situation where I would use the first sentence ("Pojken kan redan klä sig själv") but I might say something similar like "Han vet hur man klär sig" if he shows an ability to choose appropritate clothes for the occation (weather, party, or whatever the cirumstances are) but this says nothing about his ability to but them on by himself.

 

[dimhollow]

No, that wasn't exactly how I meant. Sorry If I'm being unclear.


"Klä" is related to the word "kläder" which means "clothes".
"på" means "on".
So "klä på" essentially means "put clothes on".

The word "sig" specifies whom the clothes are put on.
The word "själv" is referring back to the boy, and means that he's doing it "by himself".

"Pojken kan klä på sig själv."
"The boy can put clothes on himself, by himself"

"Pojken kan klä på sin syster själv."
"The boy can put clothes on his sister by himself"


I think when we leave out "på" we putt less emphasis on how the clothes are put on.


When we talk about how somone is dressed we normally leave out "på".

"Han klär sig så fint" normally means I think he has nice clothes on.
"Han klär på sig så fint" might sound like it is the act of putting clothes on that I think looks nice.


If I think a sweater looks nice on you I can say that it "klär dig".

"Tröjan klär dig" - The sweater looks nice on you.
"Tröjan klär på dig" - I guess this could work in some situations, if you get the stress right, otherwise it might sound like the sweater is helping you getting dressed which is wierd.


When we "dress" an object, by decorating it or putting something over it, we seldom use "på" (sometimes we use other prepositions).

"Klä julgranen"
"Decorate the Christmas tree"

"Klä på julgranen" is not idiomatic.


It depends on what I was trying to say. In your example I would use the second sentence ("Pojken kan redan klä på sig själv.") assuming I mean he is able to put his clothes on by himself. I have a hard time imagining a situation where I would use the first sentence ("Pojken kan redan klä sig själv") but I might say something similar like "Han vet hur man klär sig" if he shows an ability to choose appropritate clothes for the occation (weather, party, or whatever the cirumstances are) but this says nothing about his ability to but them on by himself.

Thank you very much for all the trouble of explaining this point.

I now see where I got it a bit mixed up:
I wrongly grouped "sig själv" together, but this compound pronoun has a seperate function,
and it's actually "på sig" that should go together here in the first place, with "själv" tagging
along, to emphasise that this boy, "he himself", as it were, is doing the action without help
from anyone else.
to sum it up, it's was the distinct meaning and function of each of the words "sig" and "själv"
that lead my astray.

Again, lots of thanks. I love your language very much.

 

[AutumnOwl]

Compare the Swedish "klä på sig" and the French "s'habiller", in English it's "get dressed". As in the French language (se X/ s'X), Swedish has a few verbs that are constructed as "X sig". In Swedish "klä på sig", "tvätta sig", "kamma sig", röra på sig", "skada sig", "klippa sig" are some of these verbs, when it's something a person does (or that someone does something - klippa sig) to themselves. The word "själv" can be added as an emphasis, and it's only with "klippa sig" and "klippa sig själv" there is a difference in the meaning, the first means that someone else will cut the hair, the second that the person will cut their own hair.