Swedish Wrong Word Orders -- Still Understandable?

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

Phrasebase Archive

detbarn Wednesday 08th of February 2006 10:50:34 PM
wrong word orders -- still understandable? - I know all except the first one are incorrect, but are all the incorrect ones still understandable?

För en tid sedan hade jag inte läst många böcker.

*För en tid sedan jag inte hade läst många böcker.
*Jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst många böcker.
*Många böcker jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst.
*Jag för att inte ville att, många böcker jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst.

*EDITS*
changed "ville inte" to "inte ville"
changed the "har"'s to "hade"'s

Rikard Thursday 09th of February 2006 02:10:58 AM
- In all of your examples, including the first one, you need to change [i]har[/i] to [i]hade[/i]. In swedish this tempus is know as [i]pluskvamperfekt[/i]. I think you call it past pefect in english.

All constructs are more or less understandable exept the last one. That one is just confusing even if i can figure out the meaning of it after reading it several times. No one would understand it directly if you just said it.

jolin Thursday 09th of February 2006 06:52:07 PM
- [quote][i]Originally posted by detbarn[/i]

I know all except the first one are incorrect, but are all the incorrect ones still understandable?

För en tid sedan hade jag inte läst många böcker.

*För en tid sedan jag inte hade läst många böcker.
*Jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst många böcker.
*Många böcker jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst.
*Jag för att inte ville att, många böcker jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst.

[/quote]

I find the first two incorrect ones perfectly understandable. They are good examples of the way many immigrants would put it.
The third is understandable but with a different meaning than the first two.

The third I interpret as

"A lot of books which I hadn't read for some time".

It is, however, unclear, and other Swedes may interpret it differently.

The fourth I don't really understand, even if I try hard.

Rikard Thursday 09th of February 2006 08:53:33 PM
- I agree that number 3 could be interpreted a little bit as you want really.

Btw i read a cool mistake in the paper today.

it said something like "Rånare greps med motorsåg" (Robber arrested by/with chainsaw".

it should be "Rånare med motorsåg greps". (robber with chainsaw was arrested. :)

So the word order can very much determine the meaning of a sentence.

detbarn Friday 10th of February 2006 12:01:09 PM
- [quote][i]Originally posted by jolin[/i]
The fourth I don't really understand, even if I try hard.
[/quote]
What I did was changing "För att jag" to "Jag för att", and not following the V2 rule, of course.

What about these below?

*För att jag inte ville att, jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst många böcker.

*För att jag inte ville att, för en tid sedan, jag inte hade läst många böcker.

*Dessa två jag inte verkligen gillar.

They're all understandable, aren't they?

detbarn Friday 10th of February 2006 04:56:31 PM
- _

Mathieu Friday 10th of February 2006 06:43:24 PM
- Why would you want to know such a thing in the first place? Praise yourself lucky it's Swedish you're learning, Swedish word order isn't so hard.
Seriously, I think making deliberate mistakes in your process of practise destroys your competence in the end.. you know better than this yourself, so why ask?

Rikard Saturday 11th of February 2006 12:57:51 AM
- Your examples are still entirely messed up. I think you have confused "ville" with "skulle".

"inte ville att" implies not wanting to do something. I think you're meaning "somewthing that will happen". Am i right?

Can you please write what it is you're trying to say? Cause it doesn't make sense at all so it's kinda hard to correct it.

detbarn Saturday 11th of February 2006 02:11:43 PM
- [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i]

Your examples are still entirely messed up. I think you have confused \"ville\" with \"skulle\".

\"inte ville att\" implies not wanting to do something. I think you\'re meaning \"somewthing that will happen\". Am i right?

Can you please write what it is you\'re trying to say? Cause it doesn\'t make sense at all so it\'s kinda hard to correct it.[/quote]
It meant \"Because I didn\'t want to, I haven\'t read many books recently\".

By the way, does \"för en tid sedan\" mean \"recently\", or \"in the past\"? And does \"nyligen\" mean \"recently\" or \"newly\"?

Rikard Saturday 11th of February 2006 06:18:12 PM
- För en tid sedan - A short time ago (relatively short anyway hehe. Can never mean a long time ago)
nyligen - recently

In your example you will have to add the because :)
Use either "eftersom" or "därför att" depending on the situation. In this case, if you begin a sentence with it and is not answering a question, use "eftersom". "Darför att" is more oftenly used to answer "Varför (why)" questions.

Eftersom jag inte ville/ hade lust, hade jag inte läst många böcker på sista tiden.

"På sista/senaste tiden" is yet another way we say these things.

While "för en tid sedan" indicates a time period up until that moment in the past (or at specifically that moment), "på sista tiden" indicates a period from sometime in the near past up until now.

detbarn Saturday 11th of February 2006 10:57:17 PM
- So it seems that "I don't want to", is "Jag vill inte", not "Jag vill inte att".

Rikard Sunday 12th of February 2006 09:22:41 AM
- Yes

detbarn Saturday 20th of May 2006 11:32:28 PM
- [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i]

In all of your examples, including the first one, you need to change [i]har[/i] to [i]hade[/i]. In swedish this tempus is know as [i]pluskvamperfekt[/i]. I think you call it past pefect in english.[/quote]
But isn\'t it \"Recently I [b]have[/b] not read many books.\" in English, so is it different in Swedish?

Rikard Sunday 21st of May 2006 05:29:12 PM
- [i]För en tid sedan[/i] makes it past tense. It means sort of \"a short while ago\". So you\'re forced to use \"had\" and not \"have\".

If you want to say \"recently\" you could use [i]på sista tiden[/i] or some similar construct.

Phrasebase Archive
	detbarn	Wednesday 08th of February 2006 10:50:34 PM
	wrong word orders -- still understandable? - I know all except the first one are incorrect, but are all the incorrect ones still understandable? För en tid sedan hade jag inte läst många böcker. För en tid sedan jag inte hade läst många böcker. Jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst många böcker. Många böcker jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst. Jag för att inte ville att, många böcker jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst. EDITS changed "ville inte" to "inte ville" changed the "har"'s to "hade"'s
	Rikard	Thursday 09th of February 2006 02:10:58 AM
	- In all of your examples, including the first one, you need to change [i]har[/i] to [i]hade[/i]. In swedish this tempus is know as [i]pluskvamperfekt[/i]. I think you call it past pefect in english. All constructs are more or less understandable exept the last one. That one is just confusing even if i can figure out the meaning of it after reading it several times. No one would understand it directly if you just said it.
	jolin	Thursday 09th of February 2006 06:52:07 PM
	- [quote][i]Originally posted by detbarn[/i] I know all except the first one are incorrect, but are all the incorrect ones still understandable? För en tid sedan hade jag inte läst många böcker. För en tid sedan jag inte hade läst många böcker. Jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst många böcker. Många böcker jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst. Jag för att inte ville att, många böcker jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst. [/quote] I find the first two incorrect ones perfectly understandable. They are good examples of the way many immigrants would put it. The third is understandable but with a different meaning than the first two. The third I interpret as "A lot of books which I hadn't read for some time". It is, however, unclear, and other Swedes may interpret it differently. The fourth I don't really understand, even if I try hard.
	Rikard	Thursday 09th of February 2006 08:53:33 PM
	- I agree that number 3 could be interpreted a little bit as you want really. Btw i read a cool mistake in the paper today. it said something like "Rånare greps med motorsåg" (Robber arrested by/with chainsaw". it should be "Rånare med motorsåg greps". (robber with chainsaw was arrested. :) So the word order can very much determine the meaning of a sentence.
	detbarn	Friday 10th of February 2006 12:01:09 PM
	- [quote][i]Originally posted by jolin[/i] The fourth I don't really understand, even if I try hard. [/quote] What I did was changing "För att jag" to "Jag för att", and not following the V2 rule, of course. What about these below? För att jag inte ville att, jag för en tid sedan inte hade läst många böcker. För att jag inte ville att, för en tid sedan, jag inte hade läst många böcker. *Dessa två jag inte verkligen gillar. They're all understandable, aren't they?
	detbarn	Friday 10th of February 2006 04:56:31 PM
	- _
	Mathieu	Friday 10th of February 2006 06:43:24 PM
	- Why would you want to know such a thing in the first place? Praise yourself lucky it's Swedish you're learning, Swedish word order isn't so hard. Seriously, I think making deliberate mistakes in your process of practise destroys your competence in the end.. you know better than this yourself, so why ask?
	Rikard	Saturday 11th of February 2006 12:57:51 AM
	- Your examples are still entirely messed up. I think you have confused "ville" with "skulle". "inte ville att" implies not wanting to do something. I think you're meaning "somewthing that will happen". Am i right? Can you please write what it is you're trying to say? Cause it doesn't make sense at all so it's kinda hard to correct it.
	detbarn	Saturday 11th of February 2006 02:11:43 PM
	- [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i] Your examples are still entirely messed up. I think you have confused \"ville\" with \"skulle\". \"inte ville att\" implies not wanting to do something. I think you\'re meaning \"somewthing that will happen\". Am i right? Can you please write what it is you\'re trying to say? Cause it doesn\'t make sense at all so it\'s kinda hard to correct it.[/quote] It meant \"Because I didn\'t want to, I haven\'t read many books recently\". By the way, does \"för en tid sedan\" mean \"recently\", or \"in the past\"? And does \"nyligen\" mean \"recently\" or \"newly\"?
	Rikard	Saturday 11th of February 2006 06:18:12 PM
	- För en tid sedan - A short time ago (relatively short anyway hehe. Can never mean a long time ago) nyligen - recently In your example you will have to add the because :) Use either "eftersom" or "därför att" depending on the situation. In this case, if you begin a sentence with it and is not answering a question, use "eftersom". "Darför att" is more oftenly used to answer "Varför (why)" questions. Eftersom jag inte ville/ hade lust, hade jag inte läst många böcker på sista tiden. "På sista/senaste tiden" is yet another way we say these things. While "för en tid sedan" indicates a time period up until that moment in the past (or at specifically that moment), "på sista tiden" indicates a period from sometime in the near past up until now.
	detbarn	Saturday 11th of February 2006 10:57:17 PM
	- So it seems that "I don't want to", is "Jag vill inte", not "Jag vill inte att".
	Rikard	Sunday 12th of February 2006 09:22:41 AM
	- Yes
	detbarn	Saturday 20th of May 2006 11:32:28 PM
	- [quote][i]Originally posted by Rikard[/i] In all of your examples, including the first one, you need to change [i]har[/i] to [i]hade[/i]. In swedish this tempus is know as [i]pluskvamperfekt[/i]. I think you call it past pefect in english.[/quote] But isn\'t it \"Recently I [b]have[/b] not read many books.\" in English, so is it different in Swedish?
	Rikard	Sunday 21st of May 2006 05:29:12 PM
	- [i]För en tid sedan[/i] makes it past tense. It means sort of \"a short while ago\". So you\'re forced to use \"had\" and not \"have\". If you want to say \"recently\" you could use [i]på sista tiden[/i] or some similar construct.