|
Home |
Classroom |
Archive 1 |
Archive 2 |
Words |
Phrases |
Countries |
Languages
|
 Return to the SWEDISH Archive | Forward to the Current SWEDISH Forum |
| Phrasebase Archive | |
| ulven | Thursday 04th of August 2005 06:46:15 PM |
| Användning av 'dÃ¥' och 'när' - I'd like to check if these clauses with då/när and på grund av/därför att are different in Swedish to Danish... [quote][i]by Freja[/i] If the sentence is in the past tense, and the action happened once, you use da. If the action happened more than once, you use når[/quote]-said in regard to the Danish language. "Jag köpte några skor, [b]då[/b] jag var i Sverige" -[i]I bought some shoes [b]when[/b] I was in Sweden[/i] "Jag åt alltid jordgubbe, [b]när[/b] jag besögte mine föräldrar" -[i]I always ate strawberries [b]when[/b] I visited my grandparents[/i] "Jeg köpte några sko, [b]så[/b] var jeg i Sverige" -[i]I bought some shoes, [b]then[/b] I was in Sweden[/i] "Jag köpte några sko, [b]för/därför att[/b] jag var i Sverige" -[i]I bought some shoes [b]because[/b] I was in Sweden[/i] *I'm not at all sure of when to use [i]därför att[/i] or [i]för[/i] instead of [i]på grund av[/i]. ------------------------------ How would I say "I heard you say it"? My guess would be "Jag hörde dig att sägä det". | |
| Mathieu | Thursday 04th of August 2005 09:02:15 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by ulven[/i] *I'm not at all sure of when to use [i]därför att[/i] or [i]för[/i] instead of [i]på grund av[/i]. [/quote] The first two require an embedded sentence, the latter requires a single noun phrase. Lets see if I can enrich this with examples, but they might need some correction :) Därför att han inte vet det Because he doesn't know it På grund av honom Because of him Thus, 'därför att' means 'because', and 'på grund av' means 'because of' (which figures since 'av' means 'of'). Note also that since 'därför att' is followed by an [b]embedded[/b] clause, the word order can appear slightly different (in this case it makes 'inte' appear in front of the verb). I'm not 100% sure if that happens with 'för' as well, at least it does with anything that involves 'att'. | |
| Rikard | Thursday 04th of August 2005 09:23:01 PM |
| - the word is [i]när[/i] not [i]når[/i] (reach) :) And the plural of [i]sko[/i] (shoe) is [i]skor[/i]. You use [i]på grund av[/i] when somethings has happened, or something is in your way, or in any other way causes you to take an action you normally perhaps wouldn't take. For example: På grund av det dåliga vädret så kunde vi inte gå ut. but Vi åkte till Holland därför att vi hade hört att de hade fina tulpaner där. Instead of [i]på grund av[/i], when you're using it in a positive way, you often use [i]tack vare[/i] (thanks to). Nu kan jag äntligen köpa skor tack vare att du lånade mig pengar. | |
| Mathieu | Friday 05th of August 2005 05:21:40 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Hoogard[/i] På grund av det dåliga vädret så kunde vi inte gå ut. [/quote] How's this? (might need some correction but I think you'll get the idea :) ) vi kunde inte gå ut därför att vädret var så dåligt [quote][i]Originally posted by Hoogard[/i] Vi åkte till Holland därför att vi hade hört att de hade fina tulpaner där. [/quote] Vi åkte till Holland på grund av de fina tulpaner som de har där. So what I tried to do here is convert an embedded sentence to a noun phrase ('they have fine tulips there' (sentence) to 'the fine tulips that they have there' (noun phrase)) and vice versa, and thus swap the 'därför att' and the 'på grund av' :) | |
| Rikard | Friday 05th of August 2005 08:19:25 PM |
| - In the first case your swapping is okey. Not in the second though. It sounds all wrong :) | |
| Mathieu | Friday 05th of August 2005 11:40:26 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Hoogard[/i] Not in the second though. It sounds all wrong :)[/quote] Ah, tnx, best explaination ever :p | |
| Rikard | Saturday 06th of August 2005 01:01:36 AM |
| - Well i suppose you could put it that way. It just sounds though that it was the tulips that made you travel in the first place. In most cases you first decide to travel somewhere, then you decide where you want to go and why | |
| ulven | Saturday 06th of August 2005 02:17:14 PM |
| - The [i]på grund av[/i] may imply a change of mind, it seems. Like "we were initially [i]not[/i] going to go, but changed our minds, and have now decided we will". Would [i]för[/i] work in place of [i]därför att[/i]? "Vi åkte till Holland [u]därför att[/u] [b]*de har[/b] fina tulpaner där" "Vi åkte till Holland [u]för[/u] att [b]*de har[/b] fina tulpaner där" [b]*[/b][i]correction noted. I should have read it before submitting[/i]:p. | |
| Mathieu | Saturday 06th of August 2005 07:09:44 PM |
| - Hmm yeah it does sound a bit weird, I get it I think :) Ulven, you gave the 'därför att' a nounphrase, namely 'de fina tulpaner som de har där', and it requires a sentence: "Vi åkte till Holland därför att [de har fina tulpaner där]" So far I've been lead to believe that 'pga' requires a noun phrase and 'därför att' a sentence, and that that's the only difference. The reason that sentence with 'pga' sounded awkward is perhaps just because when you use 'pga', you get a nounphrase (a 'thing'), and it is weird to travel somewhere because of that one 'thing', instead of giving a reasonable argument (a sentence, which you have with därför att), but that's totally unrelated to grammar :D | |
| Rikard | Saturday 06th of August 2005 10:31:57 PM |
| - Ulven. As Teup says you would have to phrase it: Vi åkte till Holland därför att de har fina tulpaner där And yes you can exchange därför with för. I think they are intechangeable in most, if not every, cases. The latter is faster to say though and therefore almost always used when speakling. Teup. You wouldn't be so kind and explain to me what a noun phrase is anyway? and how to distinguish it from the others :D | |
| Mathieu | Sunday 07th of August 2005 03:35:11 AM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Hoogard[/i] Teup. You wouldn't be so kind and explain to me what a noun phrase is anyway? and how to distinguish it from the others :D[/quote] Ah, here it is :) därför att [sentence]: "Vi åkte till Holland därför att [de har fina tulpaner där]" på grund av [noun phrase]: "Vi åkte till Holland på grund av [de fina tulpaner som de har där]" (maybe swap for another noun phrase like [det dåliga vädret] if the sentence sounds bad this way :D ) You see? The phrase [de fina tulpaner som de har där] is actually one big noun (could be a subject or an object of a sentence, etc), whereas [de har fina tulpaner där] is a sentence, complete with subject verb and object. It's like 'because' versus 'because of' Because (därför att) [Teup is crazy] -> sentence Because of (på grund av) [crazy Teup] -> noun phrase Can 'Därför att' be swapped by 'eftersom' or is there another application for that one? I don't see it in use alot anyway.. | |
| Rikard | Sunday 07th of August 2005 06:22:53 AM |
| - Yes now i'm with you. And it is as you say that [i]på grund av[/i] does indeed require a noun phrase whereas a sentence just wouldn't do. [i]Eftersom[/i] can be used instead of [i]därför att[/i] or [i]för att[/i]. There's really no difference. And it is actually used quite often. Note that [i]för att[/i] is also used when saying "what to do" Example: Vi åkte till Holland för att plocka tulpaner. We went to Holland to pick tulips. Jag har kommit för att slå dig i ansiktet I've come to punch you in the face | |
| ulven | Sunday 07th of August 2005 11:20:36 AM |
| - :)lol. Den förste mening var mild, så måstedde där att bliva en seg en. Man måster vara säker att synas inte för mycket som en flicka.:p Hoogard är jo en man!:D -The first sentnce was really gentle, so you must follow it with a tough, manly sentence so as not to look too girly. Hoogard is all man! *verbix.com said that the past tense of måste is måstedde and the present tense måster. I hope they're not wrong again. | |
| Mathieu | Sunday 07th of August 2005 06:46:27 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by ulven[/i] *verbix.com said that the past tense of måste is måstedde and the present tense måster. I hope they're not wrong again. [/quote] Kanske, i så fall har jag gjort det fel hela tiden :p Thanks about the 'för att' explaination, that's really easy since that just replaces 'om te' in Dutch for me :) | |
| D | Sunday 07th of August 2005 06:48:19 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by ulven[/i]*verbix.com said that the past tense of måste is måstedde and the present tense måster. I hope they're not wrong again.[/quote] Ach, but they are; Modern Standard Swedish uses [i]måste[/i] for both past and present tense. The perfect form is [i]måst[/i]. For a full list of how to conjugate [i]att måsta[/i], look at http://www.verba.org/owa-verb/verba_dba.verba_sv.select_page?query_verba=m%C3%A5staD D | |
| Rikard | Sunday 07th of August 2005 10:01:52 PM |
| - not a verb you conjugate especially often hehe. Note than when speaking in past tense we tend to use [i]vara tvungen[/i] instead. Jag var tvungen att slå dig i ansiktet (:p) I had to punch you in the face Not to confuse with: Jag blev tvingad att slå dig i ansiktet I was forced to punch you in the face | |
