|
Home |
Classroom |
Archive 1 |
Archive 2 |
Words |
Phrases |
Countries |
Languages
|
 Return to the SWEDISH Archive | Forward to the Current SWEDISH Forum |
| Phrasebase Archive | |
| detbarn | Thursday 08th of December 2005 10:54:21 PM |
| word order and adverbs - Are all of these sentences correct? Jag läste detta igår. Jag läste inte detta igår. Jag läste detta inte igår. Jag läste inte denna bok igår. Igår läste jag detta. Jag gillar verkligen detta. Jag gillar verkligen denna bok. Jag gillade detta verkligen för. Jag gillade denna bokar verkligen för. Egentligen, gillade jag detta för. Jag sade att jag såg detta igår. Jag sade att jag inte såg detta igår. Jag sade att jag igår inte såg detta. Jag sade att igår jag inte såg detta. Jag sade att detta igår jag inte såg. Jag sade att detta jag igår inte såg. Jag sade att igår detta jag inte såg. | |
| Rikard | Friday 09th of December 2005 02:04:46 AM |
| - No, these aren't: Jag läste detta inte igår. [i]The word order you used previously was correct[/i] Jag läste inte denna bokar igår. [i]It's called "bok", not bokar. The plural form is "böcker" but then you wouldn't be using "denna" but "dessa"[/i] Jag gillar verkligen denna bokar. [i]should be: "Jag gillar verkligen den här boken[/i] Jag gillade detta verkligen för. [i]Should be: Jag gillar verkligen detta för....[/i] Jag gillade denna bokar verkligen för. [i]Combine the above and you'll get: "Jag gillar verkligen den här boken för..."[/i] Egentligen, gillade jag detta för. [i]You should write "för att". Leaving out the "att", which happens quite frequently isn't very good swedish[/i] Jag sade att jag sågar detta igår. [i]past tense of "sågar" is "sågade".[/i] Jag sade att jag igår inte sågade detta. [i]Wrong word order ; "Jag sade igår att jag inte sågade detta". Or rather "igår sade jag att jag inte sågade detta". As this could be meaning many thins the word order quite depends on what you are trying to say. For example maybe it was earlier this afternoon that you didn't say that you sawed yesterday in which case the "inte" is placed wrong. you'll have to work that out for yourself or get back to me if you're still unsure.[/i] Jag sade att igår jag inte sågade detta. Jag sade att detta igår jag inte sågade. Jag sade att detta jag igår inte sågade. Jag sade att igår detta jag inte sågade. [i]All these are wrong. you know the wright answer already.[/i] Du vet att jag sågar detta igår. [i]sågade[/i] Du vet att jag igår inte sågade detta. [i]Wrong word order; "du vet att jag inte sågade detta igår"[/i] Du vet att igår jag inte sågade detta. Du vet att detta igår jag inte sågade. Du vet att detta jag igår inte sågade. Du vet att igår detta jag inte sågade. [i]all these are wrong (the word order). You know the right one[/i] [i]PS. When you used "denna" i have changed it to "den här". "denna" isn't wrong but "den här" sounds better. You could use both though. Use the one that feels best[/i] | |
| detbarn | Friday 09th of December 2005 02:00:30 PM |
| - It seems that based on what you said an adverb or object cannot go right after the subordinate conjunction like 'att', so all of these below would be wrong. 'att [adverb] [subject] [verb] [object]' 'att [adverb] [subject] [adverb] [verb] [object]' 'att [object] [subject] [verb]' 'att [object] [subject] [adverb] [verb]' 'att [adverb] [object] [subject] [adverb] [verb]' 'att [adverb] [object] [subject] [verb]' Is there really none that is correct? And by the way, is it not true that in subordinate clauses an adverb can preceed the first (finite) verb? | |
| Rikard | Saturday 10th of December 2005 02:51:38 AM |
| - grammar isn't my stronges side but isn't it called adverbial when talking about a clause element (swedish: satsdel) while adverb is a part of speech (swedish: ordklass). Anyway. Since I didn't recognize any adverbials in your examples it's kind of hard for me to tell. Isn't it true that adverbials, amongst other things, answers to questions as "when", "where" and "how". So in one of your examples. Jag sade att mannen sågade trädet långsamt mannen = subject trådet = object sågade = verb långtsamt = adverbial. (in the subordinate conjugation) | |
| detbarn | Saturday 10th of December 2005 11:01:41 AM |
| - So are these correct? Du vet att [in the morning] jag faktiskt läste den här boken. Du vet att [in the morning] den här boken jag faktiskt läste. | |
| Sigryn | Sunday 11th of December 2005 06:02:09 AM |
| - I think that the second one, Du vet att [in the morning] den här boken jag faktiskt läste. , is not correct, because of the word order in the clause, in bisats. i would write it : Du vet att jag faktiskt läste den här boken [in the morning]. | |
| Jadokesa | Sunday 11th of December 2005 08:57:37 PM |
| - Neither are correct, actually. Du vet att jag faktiskt läste den här boken i morse Du vet att jag läste faktiskt den här boken i morse (emphasis on [i]faktiskt[/i]) Du vet att i morse läste jag faktiskt den här boken (emphasis on [i]i morse[/i]) There could be other acceptable versions of this sentence as well. The sentence intonation changes in cool ways as well. I'll see if I can record it... when my disturbing brother leaves the room. [i]I morse[/i] is "this morning". If you didn't want to specify which morning it was, [i]på morgonen[/i] is used. | |
| detbarn | Thursday 22nd of December 2005 06:46:01 PM |
| - Do people sometimes use incorrect word order when speaking informally, such as saying sentences like "*Det jag gillar!", "*Igår jag såg...", "*Det bokar... jag verkligen gillar!", "*Jag verkligen gillar det!", and "*Jag inte gillar det!" or "*Jag verkligen inte gillar det!"? | |
| Jolin | Monday 02nd of January 2006 01:40:48 AM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by detbarn[/i] Do people sometimes use incorrect word order when speaking informally, such as saying sentences like "*Det jag gillar!", "*Igår jag sågade...", "*Det bokar... jag verkligen gillar!", "*Jag verkligen gillar det!", and "*Jag inte gillar det!" or "*Jag verkligen inte gillar det!"?[/quote] Nej, aldrig! Svensk ordföljd är svår att lära sig för många. Det ofta ordföljden som avslöjar att en person inte har svenska som modersmål, även om intonation och melodi är svensk. No, never! To many people, Swedish word order is difficult to learn. Even if the intonation and melody is correct, the word order is often what reveals that a person does not speak Swedish as his native language. "jag gillar inte det där" - "I don't like that" "det där gillar jag inte" - "I don't like that" (alternative word order) "men det här gillar jag" - "but I like this" "men jag gillar det här" - "but I like this" (alternative word order) "men det här gillar jag verkligen" - "but I really like this" "men jag gillar verkligen det här" - "but I really like this" (alternative word order) | |
| detbarn | Monday 02nd of January 2006 05:30:21 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Jolin[/i] [quote][i]Originally posted by detbarn[/i] Do people sometimes use incorrect word order when speaking informally, such as saying sentences like...[/quote] No, never!....[/quote] Not even when adverbs, prepositional phrases, or subordinate clauses, go in the beginning of the sentence like in "*Igår jag såg...", "*I morse jag såg..." or "*Därför att jag var..., jag kunde inte..."? What do they do instead? Put an adverb after the main verb in a subordinate clause when verb-second is impossible like in "*...att jag gillar inte det där" or "*...att jag gillar verkligen det här"?[/quote] | |
| Jolin | Monday 02nd of January 2006 07:32:26 PM |
| - It was a long time since I studied language in school, so I am not fluent in grammar terminology. Just a remark, is "sågade" the verb you want as an example? "Sågade" = "Sawed" (what you can do with wood and the tool "saw"). Or ar you referring to the irregular verb "se" = "see"? Then the verb form would be "såg" ("saw"). I stick with the wood sawing: "Igår jag sågade..." should be "Igår sågade jag...", but if you move away "igår", you get the construct "Jag sågade ... igår", with the verb before the pronoun. In this case, switching the verb and pronoun would render a question "Sågade jag ... igår?". The same goes with "I morse". If you go to the future, tomorrow (I morgon) you get "I morgon ska jag såga ..." or "Jag ska såga ... i morgon". (equivalent) The question construct would be "Ska jag såga ... i morgon?". The "I morgon" or "Igår" can appear first in the questions as well, however it is then very emphasized, you have to have a very audible comma after it: "I morgon, ska jag såga ... ?" This would be translated as "What about tomorrow, should I saw ...?" | |
| mrbicrevise | Wednesday 04th of January 2006 07:37:00 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i] Jag sade att mannen sågade trädet långsamt mannen = subject trådet = object sågade = verb långtsamt = adverbial. (in the subordinate conjugation)[/quote] Hmm, Är det "I told the man to saw the tree slowly" eller någonting fullständigt olika? | |
| Jolin | Wednesday 04th of January 2006 08:36:17 PM |
| - Detbarn: "Igår jag såg..." should be "Igår såg jag..." Mrbicrevise: "Jag sade att mannen sågade trädet långsamt" = "I said the man was sawing the tree slowly" "I told the man to saw the tree slowly" would be said as "Jag sade till mannen att såga trädet långsamt" | |
| detbarn | Saturday 07th of January 2006 11:38:12 PM |
| - What about these? Jag betvivla att han igår läste den här boken. Jag betvivla att igår han läste den här boken. Jag betvivla att den här boken han läste igår. Jag bevisade att, därför att han var sjuk, han inte kom. | |
| Jolin | Sunday 08th of January 2006 01:27:40 AM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by detbarn[/i] What about these? Jag betvivla att han igår läste den här boken. Jag betvivla att igår han läste den här boken. Jag betvivla att den här boken han läste igår. Jag bevisade att, därför att han var sjuk, han inte kom.[/quote] It is not Swedish word order in any of the examples. Jag betvivlar att han läste den här boken igår. Jag bevisade att han inte kom, därför att han var sjuk. The last one is not perfectly clear, because it may state the wrong casuality - "Since he was ill, I proved he did not come". To make it impeccable, it must be rephrased with other words: Jag bevisade att orsaken till att han inte kom var att han var sjuk. Or (tedious language): Han kom inte därför att han var sjuk, vilket jag bevisade. | |
| Mathieu | Sunday 08th of January 2006 02:15:48 AM |
| - What about this? Jag bevisade att det var därför att han var sjuk, att han inte kom. | |
| Jolin | Sunday 08th of January 2006 02:55:06 AM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Teup[/i] What about this? Jag bevisade att det var därför att han var sjuk, att han inte kom.[/quote] Nearly, you should preferably use "för" instead of "därför" (a matter of taste, maybe) and definitely replace the second "att": Jag bevisade att det var för att han var sjuk som han inte kom. You have a very good language feeling, I wish I can accomplish that some day in a foreign language! | |
| Mathieu | Sunday 08th of January 2006 03:30:36 AM |
| - Ah, I see, thanks! Hmm it's no big deal, Dutch isn't too different ;) That matter of taste is what I hope to add to my intuition some day.. :) | |
| detbarn | Saturday 11th of February 2006 06:35:27 PM |
| - Are all these also wrong? If so, tell me why. Jag betvivla att igår läste han den här boken. Jag betvivla att den här boken läste han igår. Jag bevisade att, den fattiga manen hjälpte han inte. Han sa(sade?) att tyvärr Johan inte har läst den här boken. Jag sade att faktiskt jag inte har läst den här boken. Jag sade att den här boken har jag faktiskt inte läst. Is OSV really never possible? ...att den här boken jag faktiskt inte läste. | |
| Rikard | Sunday 12th of February 2006 05:32:49 PM |
| - First you need to choose tempus. Do you want present or past? So chose either [i]betvivlar[/i] or [i]betvivlade[/i] (note. when we speak in past tense it often sounds as if we would say [i]betvivla[/i] and not [i]betvivlade[/i] or [i]cykla[/i] instead of [i]cyklade[/i] 1) Wrong word order, should be (present tense): [i]Jag betvivlar att han läste den här boken igår.[/i] 2) This is also wrong. With only these word the above way is how you combine them. However this is quite similar: [i]Jag betvivlar att det var den här boken (som) han läste igår.[/i] 3) Wrong word order as well as not using the object form of [i]han[/i]: [i]Jag bevisade att den fattiga mannen inte hjälpte honom.[/i] 4) Nowadays it is also accepted to write [i]sa[/i] instead of [i]sade[/i]. Order it like this: [i]Han sa/sade att Johan tyvärr inte har läst den här (/denna) boken.[/i] 5) Wrong order: [i]Jag sade att jag faktiskt inte har läst den här boken.[/i]. 6) A correct phrasing. Well done :) Is OSV really never possible? It is if you're not counting the "help verbs" as [i]har[/i]. As you wrote in 6): [i]boken har jag inte läst[/i] Note that in present or past tense this order is of course not used [i]boken läser/läste jag inte[/i] There's also another way, i don't know what it's called gramatically. [i]Det här är boken (som) jag inte läste[/i] (this is the book i didn't read) | |
| detbarn | Sunday 12th of February 2006 07:01:37 PM |
| - 3) Wrong word order as well as not using the object form of han: Jag bevisade att den fattiga mannen inte hjälpte honom. Actually, I was using topicalization, but since you told me to use the object form of "han", it seems that the topicalization was wrong and could possibly cause confusion. | |
| Mathieu | Sunday 12th of February 2006 09:22:27 PM |
| - Topicalization in an embedded clause is not available. In fact, I think it cannot be available in any possible human language as it would cause a clash in the phrase structure - there simply isn't any space for the object to move to. | |
| detbarn | Saturday 18th of February 2006 10:57:16 PM |
| - Is this correct? "Om det inte regnar, då verkligen vill jag att gå." | |
| Rikard | Sunday 19th of February 2006 06:51:26 PM |
| - No, either: Om det inte regnar, så vill jag verkligen gå or När det inte regnar, då vill jag verkligen gå. | |
| detbarn | Thursday 02nd of March 2006 12:06:02 AM |
| - [quote]5) Wrong order: Jag sade att jag faktiskt inte har läst den här boken.[/quote] Actually, I meant "Jag sade att faktiskt har jag inte läst den här boken." Is it correct? Also, is it always incorrect to place an adverb (such as "faktiskt") or prepositional phrase (such as "i morse") right after "att" if inversion is not used? | |
| Rikard | Thursday 02nd of March 2006 03:49:20 AM |
| - Hmm yes. that seems allright to me. I still prefer the sentence i gave you but it is correct as far as i can tell. Now i'm not really sure what an inversion is so it's kind of hard to answer that question. Perhaps you can explain? If it's like in these sentences i would not recommend it but rather place them elsewhere, as i showed. | |
| detbarn | Thursday 02nd of March 2006 12:30:31 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i] Now i'm not really sure what an inversion is so it's kind of hard to answer that question. Perhaps you can explain?[/quote] In "[i]att faktiskt[/i] [b]har jag[/b]" inversion is used. In "[i]att faktiskt[/i] [b]jag har[/b]" inversion is not used. By the way, is it that only certain verbs like "veta" and "säger" allow something other than the subject to be right after "att", and other verbs like "bevisar" and "betvivlar" don't? So, ".. sade att den här boken har jag .." (correct) ".. sade att faktiskt har jag .." (correct) ".. sade att igår läste jag .." (correct) ".. vet att den här boken har jag .." (correct) ".. vet att faktiskt har jag .." (correct) ".. vet att igår läste jag .." (correct) ".. betvivlar att igår läste han .." (incorrect) ".. betvivlar att den här boken läste han .." (incorrect) ".. betvivlar att faktiskt läste han .." (incorrect) ".. att igår han läste .." (never correct?) ".. att den här boken han läste .." (never correct?) ".. att faktiskt han läste .." (never correct?) | |
| Rikard | Friday 10th of March 2006 06:03:48 AM |
| - [quote]Also, is it always incorrect to place an adverb (such as "faktiskt") or prepositional phrase (such as "i morse") right after "att" if inversion is not used?[/quote] As we concluded it's not incorrect, but neither is it always preferred. I cannot give you any rules here. I can however take a look at any phrases you "concoct" :) and tell you if they sound nice. Deal? :) [quote]By the way, is it that only certain verbs like "veta" and "säger" allow something other than the subject to be right after "att", and other verbs like "bevisar" and "betvivlar" don't?[/quote] To be honest. i don't know. I should think it has something to do with [i]clause elements[/i] (swedish: satsdelar). If you had asked me this 8 years ago when swedish grammar was fresh in my head perhaps i would have known the answer. I should really relearn it, if only i had time. Well, don't give up hope just because i can't answer these questions of yours. Perhaps Teup knows the answer?:) lol | |
| jolin | Monday 10th of April 2006 09:35:35 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by detbarn[/i] [quote]5) Wrong order: Jag sade att jag faktiskt inte har läst den här boken.[/quote] Actually, I meant \"Jag sade att faktiskt har jag inte läst den här boken.\" Is it correct? Also, is it always incorrect to place an adverb (such as \"faktiskt\") or prepositional phrase (such as \"i morse\") right after \"att\" if inversion is not used?[/quote] The sentence under \"Wrong order\" above is perfectly correct. \"faktiskt\" after \"att\" doesn\'t work well. The pronoun/noun should go in between \"att\" and \"faktiskt\": att att bilen faktiskt startade att jag faktiskt startade bilen att jag faktiskt har läst boken att regeringen faktiskt fattade ett beslut I assume inversed or not does not apply when you split the subject and predicate? After \"i morse\" , use inversed order. Han sa att det regnade i morse. I morse regnade det. | |
| Mathieu | Tuesday 11th of April 2006 03:10:05 AM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i] Well, don\'t give up hope just because i can\'t answer these questions of yours. Perhaps Teup knows the answer?:) lol [/quote] :D Mwah, let\'s see. [quote]By the way, is it that only certain verbs like \"veta\" and \"säger\" allow something other than the subject to be right after \"att\", and other verbs like \"bevisar\" and \"betvivlar\" don\'t?[/quote] What subject are you referring to here? The subject of the embedded clause [b]always[/b] directly follows \'att\'. Jag vet [att jag kan göra det] Jag bevisar [att jag kan göra det] Jag betvivlar [att/om jag kan göra det]* An embedded clause (indicated by \"att\") is an embedded clause. No matter what verb it\'s the object of, it always has the same shape. And in Swedish, the subject has to come immediately after \"att\" (or \"om\", or perhaps other words like these). All of them have the same, autonomous format. This is all straightforward this way, but perhaps you meant another distinction.. *I am not entirely sure whether I should use \"att\" or \"om\" here. I don\'t expect any native here to really help me out really, because it is the same with my Dutch :p \"betwijfel dat/of\".. however, for the word order point it\'s irrelevant - they are of the same type of word. [quote]\"Jag sade att faktiskt har jag inte läst den här boken.\"[/quote] If this one is acceptable, then I think that is because it\'s more speaking language, so you go \"Jag sade att.. öh..\" and then you formulate your next move, and end up with a new sentence \"faktiskt har jag inte läst den här boken\" (which in isolation would be correct). As opposed to the construction \"Jag sade att faktiskt har jag inte läst den här boken.\" as one, fluent whole, which would be ungrammatical. Of course, I have only basic proficiency in Swedish and I\'m not allowed at all to make these judgements, but is what it seems like to me for what it\'s worth :p | |
| Rikard | Wednesday 12th of April 2006 03:28:10 AM |
| - @Jolin. The sentence you\'re reffering to is the corrected one. The one with wrong word order is posted on the previous page. Detbarn did an ugly quote :) @teup. That sentence is as you say bad grammar and we wouldnt phrase it like that even if we got confused in the middle and adding in an \"öööööh\" :) | |
| detbarn | Monday 03rd of July 2006 01:39:19 PM |
| - [quote] [i]from http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~branigan/papers/phase-v2.pdf (page 19)[/i] In Swedish, for example, sentential adverbs can be found before the subject in embedded clauses, but not in root clauses. (13) Vikner (1991) provides the data in (58). (58) *(Hon sa att) tyvärr Johan inte har läst denna boken. [i] (She said that) unfortunately Johan not has read this book[/i] (13) Thanks to Anders Holmberg for pointing this out to me.[/quote] In that, he wrote \"(Hon sa att) tyvärr Johan\", which is what I was asking about. -------------------------- [quote] [i]from http://www.hugvis.hi.is/saekja/cgsw/CP-recursion.pdf (page 2)[/i] (1) [CP [C att] [IP han inte var hemma]] (all examples in Swedish) that he not was home (2) a. Rickard ångrade *(att) han [u]inte var[/u] hemma R. regretted *(that) he [u]not was[/u] home b.*Rickard ångrade att han [u]var inte[/u] hemma R regretted that he [u]was not[/u] home ‘Rickard regretted that he was not home.’ (3) a. Rickard sa (att) han [u]inte var[/u] hemma R. said (that) he [u]not was[/u] home b. Rickard sa *(att) han [u]var inte[/u] hemma R. said *(that) he [u]was not[/u] home ‘Rickard said that he was not home.’ (4) [u]Structure for EV2[/u]: ….[CP• [C• att [CP XP [C V ] [IP …tXP…tV … ]] (5) *Rickard sa inte att han var inte hemma R. said not that he was not home. (6) a. Hur tycker du att du uppträdde t ? how think you that you behaved t ? ‘How do you think that you behaved? b. *Hur ångrar du att du uppträdde t ? how regret you that you behaved t ? *‘How do you regret that you behaved?’ (with the intended reading) (7) a. Kanske att hon kommer senare. Maybe that she comes later b. Aldrig att jag skulle gå dit. Never that I would go there c. Möjligen att Peter vet var hon är. Possibly that P. knows where she is[/quote] --------- [quote] [i]from http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~bhatt/lin381l/l3.pdf (page 3)[/i] (12) Swedish a. Lena kanske köpte en ny bok igår Lena maybe bought a new book yesterday ‘Maybe Lena bought a new book yesterday.’ b. Igår kanske Lena köpte en ny bok yesterday maybe Lena bought a new book ‘Maybe Lena bought a new book yesterday.’ c. Kanske Lena köpte en ny bok igår maybe Lena bought a new book yesterday ‘Maybe Lena bought a new book yesterday.’ d.*Igår kanske köpte Lena en ny bok yesterday maybe bought Lena a new book[/quote] Is what he said about \"kanske\" true, that it doesn\'t have to invert? ---------- I wonder what dialect(s) are they talking about. Based on what you (Rikard) said, many of them are incorrect in standard Swedish. | |
| detbarn | Friday 14th of July 2006 04:07:34 PM |
| - Please tell me which of their sentences do you accept. | |
| Mathieu | Friday 14th of July 2006 06:12:18 PM |
| - I doubt if that with \'kanske\' really is dialectish. I\'ve seen it plenty of times, really. It also puzzled me because it looks quite strange. Unlike anything in Dutch. However, I doubt whether \'kanske\' really [i]cannot[/i] cause inversion.. maybe it\'s only possible with auxiliaries (\"kanske kan jag..\") and not with main verbs (*\"kanske köpte jag..\")? | |
| detbarn | Friday 14th of July 2006 10:04:32 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Teup[/i] I doubt if that with \'kanske\' really is dialectish. I\'ve seen it plenty of times, really. It also puzzled me because it looks quite strange. Unlike anything in Dutch. However, I doubt whether \'kanske\' really [i]cannot[/i] cause inversion.. maybe it\'s only possible with auxiliaries (\\\"kanske kan jag..\\\") and not with main verbs (*\\\"kanske köpte jag..\\\")?[/quote] I think it\'s because of the \"igår\" before the \"kanske\" that it\'s not possible. ---------- Does anyone accept omitting the \"att\", as in?: \"Jag vet han inte är här.\" \"Jag sa jag inte vet det.\" -------- For placing an adverbial between the subject and \"att\", Rikard and jolin have already said that they don\'t accept it. But is it still possible sometimes, such as when there is a negative subject, as in?: Jag sa att troligen ingen såg mig igår. | |
| Mathieu | Friday 14th of July 2006 10:49:05 PM |
| - But strangely, [i]Igår kanske Lena köpte en ny bok[/i] is said to be OK there.. Rikard isn\'t around these days so I\'ll just share my thoughts on this :) In Danish and German \'that\' can be omitted, yes, however in Danish you\'ll keep embedded clause grammar whereas in German it turns into a main clause somehow.. I don\'t know about Swedish, I\'ve never seen it being omitted really. Hmm if that phrase with troligen is sort of OK, I\'d say it\'s because \"troligen ingen\" operates as a subject. That is slightly awkward, I know, but then, the sentence also sounds slightly awkward I\'d expect. At least in Dutch it would (but it wouldn\'t be completely ungrammatical). | |
| detbarn | Saturday 15th of July 2006 11:02:32 AM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Teup[/i] But strangely, [i]Igår kanske Lena köpte en ny bok[/i] is said to be OK there..[/quote] Maybe it\'s because having two different types of adverbs that do need inversion at the beginning of the sentence makes the sentence awkward if not ungrammatical. compare: \"Igår faktiskt köpte Lena en ny bok.\" (awkward?) \"faktiskt igår köpte Lena en ny bok.\" (awkward?) \"Kanske igår Lena köpte en ny bok.\" (don\'t know about this one) | |
