# Swedish/Danish: "Living the present, creating the future. Together."



## FedeG

Hi, 

I am translating the sentence "Living the present, creating the future. Together." in Swedish and Danish. For the moment I translated as follows: 

"Levande nuet, skapa framtiden. Tillsammans." (Swedish)

"Lever den nuværende. Skabe fremtiden. Sammen."

But I am wondering now whether for these kinds of sentences/slogans, you normally use the gerund form of verbs as in English, or the infinity. Is there anyone who could help me?

Thanks, 
Fede


----------



## MattiasNYC

"Live" as a verb would be "Leva". But "levande nuet" _I think_ will imply that it is "the present" that "lives". Also, "skapa" translates into "create", not "creat*ing*". 

So regardless of choice I would think both "leva" and "skapa" should have the same form.

I'm struggling to find something that sounds as "catchy" as the English version without rewriting it. To me "Lev i nuet, skapa framtiden. Tillsammans." Sounds more like a slogan, but I would probably translate that into "_*Live *_(in?) the present/the now, _*create *_the future."


----------



## FedeG

Thank you very much for the explanation! That was actually what I wanted to know. I had the same problem when translating from Italian to English, as for such kind of slogans we don't use the gerund in Italian, so I had to make a choice between translating into "Living/Creating" or "Live/Create", neither of them being literally the same.


----------



## cocuyo

I think it is just as simple as in Romance languages, that the infinitive should be used. I guess you would do that in Italian? I have seen the gerund used in Portuguese, but I wouldn't use it in Spanish. And one important thing about translation is that mostly it is not done by literally interchanging words to similar foreign words. It is the meaning that should be translated, and in order to translate, of course a clear meaning is necessary.

Into Swedish, it would be along this: Leva i nuet, skapa framtiden - tillsammans.

It sure does look like marketish, and I don't like it, but it is rather close to the source. Whether it would fly as a slogan, I don't know.


----------



## MattiasNYC

cocuyo,

One difference that I pick up on between our versions is what I think "Lev" versus "Leva" does. Again, it all comes down to what the intent is with the phrase, which you pointed out really well. To me, "Lev" is a far more direct way of expressing the message, "direct" in the sense that it tells the viewer to do something. I think that it is possibly a bit stronger than "Leva", which to me seems like it invites the viewer more to reflect on his situation rather than take action. Do you know what I mean?

It's a bit hard to talk about this I think. At any rate I think you're absolutely right that the intent and meaning should be translated, and that it does come off a bit like "marketish" and arguably suitable for slogans.... maybe...


----------



## Sepia

FedeG said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am translating the sentence "Living the present, creating the future. Together." in Swedish and Danish. For the moment I translated as follows:
> ...
> 
> "Lever den nuværende. Skabe fremtiden. Sammen."
> 
> ...
> 
> Thanks,
> Fede




This makes no sense at all.   The verbs in different tempi - a present tense without a subject and an infinitive without an infinitive marker. And "den nuværende" ... how do you understand "the present"? I see it as opposed to "the future", don't you? "den nuværende ... hvad?"
Since I don't know in what context this is being used I can only guess - even if it is a stand-alone-strapline it has some kind of context, even if it is an image of some kind, a logo that stands for a group of people of some kind, a well known brand or whatever. The strapline speaking for them.


Two possibilities:

"At leve i nutiden, skabe fremtiden. Sammen."
"Vi lever i nutiden. Skaber fremtiden. Sammen."

Or does the strapline urge the addressee to do something?

"Lev i nutiden. Skab fremtiden. Sammen."    Although, here I ask myself - together with whom?


However, when it is an advert I really wonder if there is any significant reason to stick closely to the original source text. Simply translating advertising copy is usually crap. The only thing that really makes sense is to go back to the original idea and re-create the whole thing in a different langauge. That opens a whole lot more options that could be much more elegant.

A gerund makes no sense - the way *ing is used in English is simply uniqe within the Germanic languages.


----------



## Dan2

FedeG said:


> "Living the present, creating the future. Together."


Just to make it explicit: This is understood in English as an abbreviated form of
"We are living the present; we are creating the future.  (And we are doing it) together."

"We are creating the future" is meaningful.  I'm not sure about "We are living the present". 

(In case anyone beside me was unfamiliar with Sepia's "strapline": it apparently means a short advertising slogan.  It's either predominately British or limited to the marketing world, or both.)


----------



## FedeG

Hi Sepia,

Thank you very much for the help! Actually the English sentence was originally conceived in Italian, where we use the infinity form rather than the gerund. Though written using the infinity ("Vivere il presente. Creare il futuro."), in Italian the sentence can be interpreted both as a description of what is happening, as well as an invitation to act.

In translating to English, I had to choose between using "To live the present..." and "Living the present...". Eventually, I chose the latter because the first one sounded bad to me.

The sentence is a standing alone one for a small artistic project on peace, and is meant not to be purely descriptive but not even a pure address to do something ("Live the present. Create the future." would not work very well).

As far as I understand "At leve i nutiden, skabe fremtiden. Sammen." could work. What do you think? I'm wondering however if that means "Living _in_ the present" and not "Living the present"...

Thanks, 
Fede


----------



## bicontinental

Thanks for providing more context incl. the Italian original, Fede.

In my humble opinion this ellipsis in English can be interpreted either as a gerund (living the present = the act/idea of living the present, of creating…) or as a truncated form of the present continuous I am/we are living the present as Dan explained above; either way I think it is an excellent translation of the Italian infinitive.

In Danish I’d say,

_At leve i *nuet*, at skabe fremtiden. Sammen_.

Bic.


----------



## cocuyo

Thanks for more context. I agree that the Danish phrase would sound better than using the infinitive without the infinitive mark "att", hence: 
_Att leva i nuet, att skapa framtiden, tillsammans._


----------



## raumar

Bic's and Cocuyo's suggestions in # 9 and 10 looks fine to me, except for one thing: I am in doubt about "_i nuet_". There may of course be some subtle difference between both Swedish and Danish on the one hand, and Norwegian on the other. But as far as I know, "_leve/leva i nuet_" means to enjoy the moment, without worrying about the past or future. That may work very well in commercial advertising, but I am not sure if it is the right choice of words for a peace project. And is it really possible to create a better future, if you're just living in the moment?

Of course, only Fede can say what fits his context best. But maybe the choice between "nuet" and "nutiden" depends on what he wants to express: "the moment" or "the present time"?


----------



## FedeG

First of all, thank you everyone!



raumar said:


> And is it really possible to create a better future, if you're just living in the moment?



That's a nice but quite complex question... 

Regarding the sentence, "the present", should mean "the present time", implicitly referred to the european/global situation we are experiencing today. If there is such a difference between nuet and nutiden, I would say nutiden is more appropriate then.

P.S. I didn't get if "At leve i nutiden" is "Living the present" or "Living _in_ the present". Is "At leve nutiden" wrong?


----------



## raumar

FedeG said:


> Regarding the sentence, "the present", should mean "the present time", implicitly referred to the european/global situation we are experiencing today. If there is such a difference between nuet and nutiden, I would say nutiden is more appropriate then.



I think so, but let's hear what the others think. There may be some good arguments for "nuet" that I haven't thought about. 



FedeG said:


> P.S. I didn't get if "At leve i nutiden" is "Living the present" or "Living _in_ the present". Is "At leve nutiden" wrong?



Well, it means "Living _in_ the present", but this distinction does not really make sense in the Scandinavian languages. As you have seen, all the others have suggested an alternative with "_i_". "At leve /att leva nutiden" sounds strange to me. "At leve / att leva nuet" would certainly be wrong - "i nuet" is a set phrase.


----------



## Sepia

So if the original has an infinitive it may be a good idea to use an infinitive in the adaptation. I don't say "is" - I say "may".

"At leve nutiden" would be inconventional. However, it is not so inconventional that if you have a really good reason to leave out the preposition "i" it might be OK in an ad. What mental image do you beleive that you create with it that is different from the conventional "i nutiden"/"i nuet" (depending on what you settle for)?

Advertising does not necessarily have to be grammatically correct as long as it conveys the right idea. However, if it doesn't, and if it - on top of that - is grammatically incorrect, it is crab.

So sooner or later you'll have to do the housewife test - so you may as well do it now.


----------



## FedeG

Sepia said:


> What mental image do you beleive that you create with it that is different from the conventional "i nutiden"/"i nuet" (depending on what you settle for)?



To me, "Living the present" suggests an active role of those who are living, while "Living _in_ the present", gives me the idea of a present that is given and to which we have to adapt. 

At least in Italian, "Living the present" (Vivere il presente), though not that common, is grammatically correct and also sometimes used. Is "At leve nutiden" grammatically correct or would it be a formal mistake to write such a sentence? Have you ever heard something like that in Danish?


----------



## bicontinental

FedeG said:


> Regarding the sentence, "the present", should mean "the present time", implicitly referred to the european/global situation we are experiencing today. If there is such a difference between nuet and nutiden, I would say nutiden is more appropriate then.



Yes, in that context I’d say, _at leve i nutiden_.



FedeG said:


> Is "At leve nutiden" grammatically correct or would it be a formal mistake to write such a sentence? Have you ever heard something like that in Danish?



_At leve_ is used transitively and intransitively, so I guess it would be grammatically correct to say_ at leve nutiden_, although it isn't natural, and I suspect people will assume you forgot the 'i". _At leve _is only rarely used with a direct object, in fact the only set phrase I can think of off the top of my head is _at leve livet,_ which means to enjoy life, to live life to the fullest. _At leve *i* nuet _is another set phrase, which means to enjoy the present moment without worries or regrets about the future or the past, i.e. to live in the moment/the present (as raumar said above).

_Nutiden_ is used in a more literal sense, the present time/era.

Bic.


----------



## FedeG

Thanks Bic! 

...I tried indeed to google search for ""At leve nutiden", and I found only a title from the website of the Danish catholic church which says "At leve nutiden passioneret" and very little more.


----------



## Sepia

Like I said, it is not conventional, but also not totally excluded. You have to know what you want to say with it.


----------

