|
Home |
Classroom |
Archive 1 |
Archive 2 |
Words |
Phrases |
Countries |
Languages
|
 Return to the SWEDISH Archive | Forward to the Current SWEDISH Forum |
| Phrasebase Archive | |
| quietspeaker | Saturday 07th of January 2006 06:18:18 AM |
| a ESC question - just joined. so here's my very first question: see [b][color=magenta][url=http://www.keithm.utvinternet.ie/videos/Sweden91.wmv]carola winning the song contest[/url][/b][/color]. i don't understand the reason for this: "vi går tillsammans, förenad av kärlekens band". why "förenad", why not "förenade" (the plural)? thx | |
| Mathieu | Saturday 07th of January 2006 06:37:07 AM |
| - My assumption: It's because in this case "förenad" is a verb rather than an adjective, and it doesn't apply to verbs. The way you can distinguish verbs from adjectives, is checking whether you could insert "very" before it - if that works, you're dealing with an adjective. Here it really is a verb - there is even a "by" phrase behind it. And you can't say things like "very united by ..". Enough assuming :D | |
| Jolin | Saturday 07th of January 2006 08:59:21 AM |
| - Hehe. Not my kind of music, and I never thought of this strange text feature before. It should of course be the plural "förenade". Actually, it sounds really weird to me as it is. Must be a northern accent songwriter, or just someone found there is no note to place the plural syllable on. I can't see it as a verb, because 1) it is the wrong tense, it should be "förenas" 2) past tense of "förena" is "förenade" Note that plural adjectives are missing in some northern Swedish, as in following example: Person A: - Vad har husen för färg? (What colour are the houses?) Person B, från Kramfors: - De är röd. (They are red) Accordingly, a person from Kramfors (for example) would say "Vi är förenad av.." Carola herself is from a Stockholm suburb, so she is innocent to this strange-sounding text. | |
| Mathieu | Saturday 07th of January 2006 06:07:58 PM |
| - So would it be (when not using the passive "förenas" in the first place): "Vi är förenade av .."? That's funny, because it really is part of the verb phrase, I didn't know that one could agree with something all the way in the subject position.. I can't really fit this into the theory I know so far.. interesting :) | |
| Jolin | Saturday 07th of January 2006 06:46:24 PM |
| - Thinking of it, maybe this is a pronounciation issue after all. When I listen to myself saying "förenade av", the "e" is almost not audible. If I try to sing it with cheating in the "e" (cheating = not using a distinct, separate note for it), it gets even worse - I sing it like Carola does! Annoying, really. So I am now convinced she sings "förenade av", but you can't hear it ! Such things must be hell for you language students... | |
| quietspeaker | Saturday 07th of January 2006 07:08:00 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Teup[/i] So would it be (when not using the passive "förenas" in the first place): "Vi är förenade av .."? [/quote] Well, yes. [i]Kungen är älskad av alla, Sverige är älskat av alla, kungabarnen är älskade av alla.[/i] Right, Jolin? (Almost the same accord thing as in French.) (But is it possible to say [i]"Den av alla älskade kungen bor i det där slottet"[/i] or something complicated like that? This is where my skills end... And while you're at it, what the heck is "förenta" :P ?) [quote][i]Originally posted by Jolin[/i] Thinking of it, maybe this is a pronounciation issue after all. When I listen to myself saying "förenade av", the "e" is almost not audible. If I try to sing it with cheating in the "e" (cheating = not using a distinct, separate note for it), it gets even worse - I sing it like Carola does! Annoying, really. So I am now convinced she sings "förenade av", but you can't hear it ![/quote] Neither have those who have posted the lyrics for the song on the Internet... :( But thanks. So it [i]sounds[/i] like "förenad" because "av" begins with a vowel. :) (Unless it's some northern dialect where there would never be "e" regardless of the next word.) | |
| Jolin | Saturday 07th of January 2006 08:18:43 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by quietspeaker[/i] Well, yes. [i]Kungen är älskad av alla, Sverige är älskat av alla, kungabarnen är älskade av alla.[/i] Right, Jolin? (Almost the same accord thing as in French.) (But is it possible to say [i]"Den av alla älskade kungen bor i det där slottet"[/i] or something complicated like that? This is where my skills end... And while you're at it, what the heck is "förenta" :P ?) [/quote] Your skills seem perfect to me, and also the complicated construct is a good one. Maybe tedious, but you will come across the likes of it in Swedish texts once in a while. 10 points out of 10. "Förenta" is "förenade" in older language. Nowadays it may be used to create a little more "high" language. It goes with old written (never spoken) plural verb forms, which were scrapped in the 1930:s (?). I can find one exception, where the older language is not really possible to modernise: Today, almost everyone says USA, but formerly it was translated into "Amerikas Förenta Stater", and you still sometimes hear "Förenta staterna" as a short form of the translation. In this case, "förenta" is so connected with the expression, that "Förenade staterna" might not get understood, and someone would perhaps mistake it for the UN! "Amerikas Förenade Stater" would be understood, but no one uses it. Some older Swedish (silly) example: Förenta av kärlekens band, gingo de hand i hand längs floden. Modern: Förenade av kärlekens band, gick de hand i hand längs floden. Translated: Attached by the strings of love, they walked along the river holding hands. | |
| Rikard | Monday 09th of January 2006 06:27:01 PM |
| - I think you are all trying to make things more complicated than they really are here. This is not at question of grammar but of making the music work. It's not uncommon that songwriters leave out syllables to make it sound better or even make it work at all. For example, Elvis Presley singing "love me tender", it should really be "love me tenderly" etc. So "förenade" is the correct form you ought to use here. Don't get hooked up on song lyrics :) PS. they're silly anyway DS. | |
| quietspeaker | Monday 09th of January 2006 08:58:33 PM |
| - (sent 2 times. accidentally. deleting doesn't work.) | |
| quietspeaker | Monday 09th of January 2006 09:00:52 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i] For example, Elvis Presley singing "love me tender", it should really be "love me tenderly" etc.[/quote] Gee, I wonder how come I've never wondered that!!!! I just thought that "Fångad av en stormvind" (with the... [i]energetic[/i] performance) was a perfect, educative collection of difficult things in the (standard) Swedish grammar: word order in subordinate clauses ([i]fast jag inte kan förstå[/i]); "om" meaning 'again'; "g" being pronounced /k/ in "dags"; agent construction ([i]fångad av en stormvind[/i]); inversion ([i]plötsligt står jag i en levande orkan[/i]); and whatever these phenomena are called: [i]och det ljus som[/i] (not "det ljuset") [i]himlen lämnat kvar[/i] (no "har")... And then there was this one word that made no sense and ruined everything. :D [quote]Don't get hooked up on song lyrics PS. they're silly anyway DS. [/quote]It's too late to warn me now, song lyrics have been my method of learning grammar and idioms for years! :) | |
| Rikard | Monday 09th of January 2006 10:30:56 PM |
| - Actually the correct way would be to say "det ljuset som himlen har lämnat kvar". Leaving out the har is not gramatically correct but often done when speaking, and in writing by misstake. i do it all the time :) | |
| quietspeaker | Monday 09th of January 2006 11:03:37 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i] Actually the correct way would be to say "det ljuset som himlen har lämnat kvar". Leaving out the har is not gramatically correct but often done when speaking, and in writing by misstake. i do it all the time :)[/quote] Had to go find my grammar book. (It's about Finlandssvenska, though...) If I try to translate the instructions into English...: "In formal literal language, in a subordinate clause, the auxiliary of the perfect tense or the pluperfect tense (har/hade) may be missing and the predicate consists of the supine only: Chefen ville veta om hon redan avlagt sin examen; Det kändes som om jag sålt smöret och tappat pengarna. (Well, the second example doesn't sound exactly formal to me...) | |
| Rikard | Monday 09th of January 2006 11:32:54 PM |
| - Hmmmm. my Ms-Word always complain when i leave out the har/hade-part as you just did. Well, perhaps you are right then. We most definately speak that way very often :) | |
| Mathieu | Wednesday 11th of January 2006 02:37:37 AM |
| - Ah, apparently when you say "are united" that is a whole tense in English whereas in Swedish "är förenade" is actually an auxiliary with an adjective. Which is tricky because on the surface they seem the same. So that would be how it's possible to have the word agree with the subject (e.g. in number). Not that this would explain anything to anyone I guess, but at least I got it figured out for myself :p Hehe, Word is messed up - when I get myself a green line, I regard that as a confirmation my sentence is actually good :p Really, it's useless - it always gets genders, word orders, tenses and what not wrong.. the Dutch one at least :) If it's how you talk, well, then it's part of the language :) | |
| Rikard | Wednesday 11th of January 2006 03:26:32 AM |
| - oh the swedish grammar is rather good. it get's confused of long sentences though. | |
