Swedish Negation And Subordinate Clauses?

Home | Classroom | Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Words | Phrases | Countries | Languages

Phrasebase Archive

detbarn Monday 02nd of January 2006 10:43:03 PM
negation and subordinate clauses? - If you have something like \"Du vet att jag kan inte gå\", does the meaning change to \"You know that I don\'t have to go\"?

snowie Tuesday 03rd of January 2006 05:09:32 PM
- i THINK that would be more like
"You know i can't go"

detbarn Tuesday 03rd of January 2006 06:52:12 PM
- [quote][i]Originally posted by snowie[/i]

i THINK that would be more like
\"You know i can\'t go\"[/quote]
Wouldn\'t that be \"Du vet att jag [b]inte kan[/b] gå\" instead?

Jolin Tuesday 03rd of January 2006 07:21:34 PM
- "Du vet att jag inte kan [b]gå[/b]" = "You know I can't go"

"Du vet att jag kan inte gå" is not Swedish, this way of speaking is a typical "immigrant marker". I have a colleague who has lived in Sweden for a very long time, and he speaks with almost undetectable accent. However, he still puts the words in wrong order, and this would be his way of putting it. However, it would not cause misunderstanding.

"You know that I don't have to go" would be "Du vet att jag inte behöver gå" or "Du vet att jag inte måste gå". The "inte" cannot switch places with the "behöver/måste".

But, if you shorten it to "I don't have to go" you say

"Jag behöver inte gå".

("Måste" would sound funny here, unless it is very emphasized, "I really don't have to go" would be "Jag [b]måste[/b] inte gå" with a heavy stress on "måste".)

So, in this case, the "inte" comes last, and it can't be put in front of "behöver".

I believe the only way to learn Swedish word order, would be a lot of talking and reading to get a feeling for it, rather than stick to rules from a formal grammar book.
But this approach is also the purpose of PhraseBase, if I got it right :-)

snowie Tuesday 03rd of January 2006 08:59:59 PM
- the inte goes before the kan?...ok cool

thought negative always goes after the verb...but i guess like you say you have to learn and not always stick to the grammar rules

my grammar is rubbish in english let alone swedish! hehe

detbarn Tuesday 03rd of January 2006 10:49:05 PM
- [quote][i]Originally posted by snowie[/i]

the inte goes before the kan?[/quote]
Only in subordinate clauses.

detbarn Saturday 20th of May 2006 11:02:10 PM
- I know it\'s impossible to use \"kan inte\" to mean \"don\'t have to\" in a main clause, because there is verb movement in a main clause, but since the adverb precedes main verb in a subordinate clause, I thought it would be possible.

This is what I was thinking:

\"Du vet att jag inte [kan [gå]].\"
\"Du vet att jag [kan [inte gå]].\"

Is it not possible at all?

Rikard Sunday 21st of May 2006 05:33:07 PM
- the first one is gramatically correct but it doesn\'t mean \"don\'t have to\". It means \"not being able to\".

detbarn Sunday 21st of May 2006 07:20:35 PM
- [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i]

the first one is gramatically correct but it doesn\'t mean \\\"don\'t have to\\\". It means \\\"not being able to\\\".[/quote]
Do you mean that it\'s impossible to use \"Du vet att jag [kan [inte gå]].\" to mean \"You know that I don\'t have to go.\"?

Mathieu Sunday 21st of May 2006 07:37:32 PM
- It would mean like \"You know that I\'m able to not go\", but less grammatical I\'d say. You\'re applying the negation to the main verb \"gå\" here, so of course, it won\'t mean \"You know that I don\'t have to go\" because in that phrase the negation applies to \"have to\" and not \"go\".

I have a question, what does this mean?

\"Du måste inte gå\". It could either mean \"You shouldn\'t go\" (as in Netherlandic Dutch and Danish, I think) or \"You don\'t have to go\" (as in Flemish Dutch) or both (as in Norwegian and German)?

Rikard Monday 22nd of May 2006 01:47:29 PM
- the middle.

should is translated with \"borde\".

Du måste inte gå = you don\'t have to go
Du borde inte gå = you shouldn\'t go

Phrasebase Archive
	detbarn	Monday 02nd of January 2006 10:43:03 PM
	negation and subordinate clauses? - If you have something like \"Du vet att jag kan inte gå\", does the meaning change to \"You know that I don\'t have to go\"?
	snowie	Tuesday 03rd of January 2006 05:09:32 PM
	- i THINK that would be more like "You know i can't go"
	detbarn	Tuesday 03rd of January 2006 06:52:12 PM
	- [quote][i]Originally posted by snowie[/i] i THINK that would be more like \"You know i can\'t go\"[/quote] Wouldn\'t that be \"Du vet att jag [b]inte kan[/b] gå\" instead?
	Jolin	Tuesday 03rd of January 2006 07:21:34 PM
	- "Du vet att jag inte kan [b]gå[/b]" = "You know I can't go" "Du vet att jag kan inte gå" is not Swedish, this way of speaking is a typical "immigrant marker". I have a colleague who has lived in Sweden for a very long time, and he speaks with almost undetectable accent. However, he still puts the words in wrong order, and this would be his way of putting it. However, it would not cause misunderstanding. "You know that I don't have to go" would be "Du vet att jag inte behöver gå" or "Du vet att jag inte måste gå". The "inte" cannot switch places with the "behöver/måste". But, if you shorten it to "I don't have to go" you say "Jag behöver inte gå". ("Måste" would sound funny here, unless it is very emphasized, "I really don't have to go" would be "Jag [b]måste[/b] inte gå" with a heavy stress on "måste".) So, in this case, the "inte" comes last, and it can't be put in front of "behöver". I believe the only way to learn Swedish word order, would be a lot of talking and reading to get a feeling for it, rather than stick to rules from a formal grammar book. But this approach is also the purpose of PhraseBase, if I got it right :-)
	snowie	Tuesday 03rd of January 2006 08:59:59 PM
	- the inte goes before the kan?...ok cool thought negative always goes after the verb...but i guess like you say you have to learn and not always stick to the grammar rules my grammar is rubbish in english let alone swedish! hehe
	detbarn	Tuesday 03rd of January 2006 10:49:05 PM
	- [quote][i]Originally posted by snowie[/i] the inte goes before the kan?[/quote] Only in subordinate clauses.
	detbarn	Saturday 20th of May 2006 11:02:10 PM
	- I know it\'s impossible to use \"kan inte\" to mean \"don\'t have to\" in a main clause, because there is verb movement in a main clause, but since the adverb precedes main verb in a subordinate clause, I thought it would be possible. This is what I was thinking: \"Du vet att jag inte [kan [gå]].\" \"Du vet att jag [kan [inte gå]].\" Is it not possible at all?
	Rikard	Sunday 21st of May 2006 05:33:07 PM
	- the first one is gramatically correct but it doesn\'t mean \"don\'t have to\". It means \"not being able to\".
	detbarn	Sunday 21st of May 2006 07:20:35 PM
	- [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i] the first one is gramatically correct but it doesn\'t mean \\\"don\'t have to\\\". It means \\\"not being able to\\\".[/quote] Do you mean that it\'s impossible to use \"Du vet att jag [kan [inte gå]].\" to mean \"You know that I don\'t have to go.\"?
	Mathieu	Sunday 21st of May 2006 07:37:32 PM
	- It would mean like \"You know that I\'m able to not go\", but less grammatical I\'d say. You\'re applying the negation to the main verb \"gå\" here, so of course, it won\'t mean \"You know that I don\'t have to go\" because in that phrase the negation applies to \"have to\" and not \"go\". I have a question, what does this mean? \"Du måste inte gå\". It could either mean \"You shouldn\'t go\" (as in Netherlandic Dutch and Danish, I think) or \"You don\'t have to go\" (as in Flemish Dutch) or both (as in Norwegian and German)?
	Rikard	Monday 22nd of May 2006 01:47:29 PM
	- the middle. should is translated with \"borde\". Du måste inte gå = you don\'t have to go Du borde inte gå = you shouldn\'t go