# Swedish: som + [substantiv] eller som + en/ett [substantiv]



## Kieppi

Hej!

Finns det någon regel om användningen av ordet _som _med/utan artikel, eller hur vet man när man ska använda _en/ett_ i konstruktioner med _som + substantiv_?

Till exempel:

1) Rummet används som _(ett)_ förråd.
2) Lådan fick tjäna som _(ett)_ bord.
3) Jag har alltid betraktat henne som _(en)_ ärlig människa.
4) Gärningen kan ses som _(ett)_ uttryck för radikalism.

Jag skulle kanske själv skriva 1) och 2) utan artikel och 3) och 4) med _en _respektive _ett _men vet inte varför. Någon som kan belysa detta (och rätta mig om jag har fel)?

För dem som kan finska:
Jag minns att en av mina svensklärare sa att _som utan artikel_ motsvarar finskans essiv (suffixet -na/-nä), t.ex. "Han jobbar *som *lärare" = "Hän työskentelee opettaja*na*", medan _som + artikel_ motsvarar finskans "kuin", och därför skulle "Han jobbar *som en* lärare" betyda att personen jobbar som om han var lärare, men han är inte det ("Hän työskentelee *kuin *opettaja"). Den sista meningen är förstås inte i och för sig mycket logisk — ett bättre exempel kunde kanske vara "Han beter sig *som ett *barn (trots att han är vuxen)", "Hän käyttäytyy *kuin *lapsi". Den här regeln tycks dock inte alltid gälla eftersom jag har märkt att _som + artikel _också används i sådana fall där konstruktionen inte kan översättas med "kuin".


----------



## Gavril

Päivää Kieppi,

I'm not fluent in Swedish, but because your question hasn't been answered yet, I'll comment on your last paragraph.

I remember once seeing a Swedish sentence like _Jag betraktade henne som en vän _"I treated her as a friend". In this case, _som_ would be translated "as" in English (like the Finnish case suffix -_na_), rather than "like" (F. _kuin_) but it is still followed by an indefinite article, contrary to the pattern you remember your teacher explaining. However, this pattern may still be valid to a large extent (hopefully a fluent speaker will confirm/refute this).


----------



## Kieppi

Thank you for your answer, Gavril. That supports my assumption that the 3) would be correct with an article.

It would still be nice if a native Swedish speaker could confirm this.


----------



## raumar

While we are waiting for the Swedes, let me try to answer this from a Norwegian point of view. I don't think there are any differences between Norwegian and Swedish with regard to your question. But if there is, I hope a Swede can correct me. 

It isn't so easy for native speakers to answer this question - we use articles without thinking of rules. So, let me start with your four examples and try to work out some rules. I agree with your choices, but there is an important difference between your sentence 3) and the others. 3) would definitely be incorrect without the article, while the others (especially 4) could work both with and without an article. 

The reason is the adjective, in this case "_ärlig"_. You would have needed an article in the other three sentences as well, if you had included an adjective before the noun. This gives us a first rule: you should use an article when the noun follows an adjective. 

Second, Gavril is right: when "_som"_ means "like", you should use an article. But when "_som"_ means "as", it could go either way. 

Third, there are some cases where an articles is used in English, but not in the Scandinavian languages. When you describe a person's occupation, religion, nationality or sex (it may be other categories as well), you don't use any article. We say "_Han er lærer/katolikk/amerikaner/mann_", without any article (unless there is an adjective before the noun). This applies irrespective of "_som_", but it also affects sentences with "_som_". (It is possible to say "_Han er en lærer_", but that would mean "He is one teacher", not "He is a teacher"). 

Fourth, I think it is a question of general concepts (no article) vs countable objects (article). In 2), "_Lådan fick tjäna som bord"_, "_bord_" refers to the concept or function. It is not really important that it is one single piece of furniture. In 4), "_Gärningen kan ses som (ett) uttryck för radikalism_", I think "_uttryck för radikalism_" could refer both to one single expression of radicalism (among many), or a general category. Therefore, I think this sentence works both with and without the article. 

I hope some Swedes can confirm (or correct) this reasoning!


----------



## DerFrosch

I very much agree with raumar's explanation, with the tiny exception that I wouldn't consider it idiomatic to omit the article in the fourth sentence. (Perhaps it's different in Norwegian.) I would say it can be omitted in 1) and 2), but it normally isn't.

Like raumar said, this is rather difficult to explain for native speakers, and I do understand this can be confusing for learners. Hopefully the answers have been of some help to Kieppi. (Din svenska är riktigt bra!)


----------



## Learningit

I have a question regarding this... I'm studying advanced Swedish and there's this in one of the chapters:

... var känd redan som ung studerande.

And I was just confused because the article wasn't used. I know that you use it when there's an adjective or a relative clause, but why wasn't it used here? Is it just a mistake or something?


----------



## AutumnOwl

Learningit said:


> ... var känd redan som ung studerande.
> 
> And I was just confused because the article wasn't used. I know that you use it when there's an adjective or a relative clause, but why wasn't it used here? Is it just a mistake or something?


In this case the "som" is a part of a particle verb, "känd som" and differs from the use of "som" in #1. You can read more here: Partikelverb | Lär Dig Svenska


----------



## myšlenka

AutumnOwl said:


> In this case the "som" is a part of a particle verb, "känd som" and differs from the use of "som" in #1. You can read more here: Partikelverb | Lär Dig Svenska


Are you sure about this? The "particle" is not stressed (which your link says it should be) and it doesn't share a syntactic property which is very common for particles: to appear in the front of participles.

_kasta bort - bortkastad
*känna som - *somkänd_


----------



## DerFrosch

No, it's certainly not a particle verb. In addition to myšlenka's observations, a conjunction can never be used as the particle in a particle verb.

As to Learningit's question, I can confirm that the sentence in question is grammatically correct and not a mistake. Again, though, I'm struggling to explain _why _it's correct, but maybe the following could be of some help: 

The phrase "vara känd som" has to different meanings.

In your example, "_Hon var känd redan som ung student_" (I'm using "_student_" here, because "_studerande_" just sounds clumsy to me) should be translated as "Sh_e was famous/well known already as a young student_".
Now let's consider a sentence such as "_Han var känd som en hårt arbetande mittfältare_". Here, "känd" should not be translated as "famous", but as "known": "_He was known as a hard-working midfielder_".

Maybe raumar's comment above is relevant here:


raumar said:


> Fourth, I think it is a question of general concepts (no article) vs countable objects (article).


----------



## Kieppi

Thank you all for the answers! I think I now understand at least somewhat better when to use an article with _som_. However, I would like to ask a further question: Are there cases similar to 1)-4) where it would be incorrect to use an article? DerFrosch said that the article can be omitted in 1) and 2) but it normally isn't, so I'm wondering if it's safest to always use an article in this kind of sentences.


----------



## Warped

_Edit: _*Usually*, the safest way is to omit, not use the article. I don't consider it idiomatic to say:

Huset används som ett förråd.

As you said, the "-na" in Finnish is "som + no article" in Swedish. There are exceptions to this.


----------



## bicontinental

Hi all,
At the risk of going off on a tangent here, I just wanted to ask if the OP's first sentence sounds OK to other Scandinavian speakers?



> 1) Rummet används som _(ett)_ förråd.



It's my understanding that the word 'förråd'(Swedish)/forråd(Danish) refers to the actual supplies/provisions rather than the place where they are being stored.
In Danish at least, this sentence should be,
Rummet anvendes _*til*_ forråd or
Rummet anvendes _*som*_ forråds-_*kammer/kælder*_

..._anvendes til forråd_ indicates the purpose i.e. _used for (storing) supplies_
whereas _anvendes som_ is a construction that requires the juxtaposition of two parallel terms, here the nouns _rum_ and _kammer/kælder
_
What do others ...Swedes in particular...think?

Going back to the original question, I agree with raumar that the use of the article has a lot to do with the context being general/conceptual or specific/countable.
Bic.


----------



## raumar

Kieppi said:


> However, I would like to ask a further question: Are there cases similar to 1)-4) where it would be incorrect to use an article? DerFrosch said that the article can be omitted in 1) and 2) but it normally isn't,  so I'm wondering if it's safest to always use an article in this kind of sentences.



Kieppi, I think your post #1 gives a good example of why this kind of thumb rule can be problematic. In your sentence "_Han jobbar som lärare_", the meaning of "_som_" changes if you insert the article - from "as" to "like", and the meaning of the whole sentence changes as well.



Learningit said:


> ... var känd redan som ung studerande.
> 
> And I was just confused because the article wasn't used. I know that you use it when there's an adjective or a relative clause, but why wasn't it used here? Is it just a mistake or something?



I was stupid enough to try to formulate a general rule in post #4 - and you have already proved that there are exceptions! I will not try to formulate another rule, but it seems to me that we often say "_som ung man/kvinna/student/lärare_" etc when we describe the early years of somebody's life or career. 

For example, I found this title on Google: "_Porträtt av en konstnär som ung man_", 
Porträtt av en konstnär som ung man  - Drama i P1

At least for me, as a Norwegian, this title makes it clear that the early years of this artist's life are being portrayed. An article after "som" would make the title ambiguous - it could mean that the artist was portrayed as if he was a young man, irrespective of his actual age. 



bicontinental said:


> It's my understanding that the word 'förråd'(Swedish)/forråd(Danish) refers to the actual supplies/provisions rather than the place where they are being stored.



The word "_forråd_" is quite old-fashioned in Norwegian, so I am not sure how we use it. We use "_lager_" for the actual supply and either "_lager_" (if the room is large) or "_bod_" (if it is small) for the place where they are stored. Anyway, the Swedish use seems to differ from the Danish. According to Swedish Wikipedia, "förråd används till att förvara olika saker."
Förråd – Wikipedia


----------



## bicontinental

^^^Thanks raumar!


----------



## DerFrosch

DerFrosch said:


> I would say it can be omitted in 1) and 2), but it normally isn't.





Kieppi said:


> DerFrosch said that the article can be omitted in 1) and 2) but it normally isn't, so I'm wondering if it's safest to always use an article in this kind of sentences.


I have to apologize for causing confusion – I meant to express the opposite of what I actually wrote!  In other words: the article would normally *not *be used in those sentences. I definitely recommend to omit it.

And concerning "_förråd_", I can confirm that it's perfectly natural and common to use it to refer to an actual room in Swedish.


----------



## Kieppi

DerFrosch said:


> I have to apologize for causing confusion – I meant to express the opposite of what I actually wrote!  In other words: the article would normally *not *be used in those sentences. I definitely recommend to omit it.


Thank you for clarifying that – I was a bit surprised when you said that the article normally wouldn't be omitted, but I didn't really question that. 

I think I'll keep that general vs. specific aspect* in mind and simply trust my intuition when using _som _in future. Tack ännu en gång för svaren!

* How do you write this kind of compounds correctly in English? General vs. specific -aspect? General vs. specific-aspect? General-vs.-specific-aspect? Without hyphen?


----------



## Gavril

Kieppi said:


> * How do you write this kind of compounds correctly in English? General vs. specific -aspect? General vs. specific-aspect? General-vs.-specific-aspect? Without hyphen?



_general-vs.-specific aspect 
_
or
_
"general vs. specific" aspect
_
The second is a riskier option because the quotation marks can suggest you don't take what is inside them seriously.


----------



## Learningit

I sent an email to Språkrådet before I got an answer here, and they replied:

"Hej!
Du ger exempel på lite olika typer av konstruktioner (användningsmönster) där _som_ ingår:
1)_Jobba som ngt_: I denna konstruktion används inte obestämd artikel.
2)_Som ngt _i betydelsen ’i egenskap av ngt’ eller ’när ngn var/är ngt’. Detta är den konstruktion som är aktuell i ditt exempel _han var känd redan som ung studerande_. Ett annat exempel: _Som statsminister har han ansvar för situationen_. Inte heller i denna konstruktion används obestämd artikel.
3)_Som ngt _i betydelsen ’på det sätt som är typiskt för’. Jag tolkar ditt exempel _han jobbar som en duktig lärare _som ett exempel på denna konstruktion. Ett annat exempel: _han dansade som en balettdansös_. I denna konstruktion används obestämd artikel."

So what I understood from her mail was that even though the adjective is present in the clause, it doesn't matter...? Though raumar's answer is pretty good ("when we describe the early years of somebody's life or career").


----------



## Kieppi

Gavril said:


> _general-vs.-specific aspect
> _
> or
> _
> "general vs. specific" aspect
> _
> The second is a riskier option because the quotation marks can suggest you don't take what is inside them seriously.


OK, thank you!

Learningit: I think the answer you got confirms what has been said here about _som _as "as" and "like" (or "-na" and "kuin" in Finnish). DerFrosch explained the use of _som_ in your sentence well, too.


DerFrosch said:


> In your example, "_Hon var känd redan som ung student_" (I'm using "_student_" here, because "_studerande_" just sounds clumsy to me) should be translated as "Sh_e was famous/well known already as a young student_".
> Now let's consider a sentence such as "_Han var känd som en hårt arbetande mittfältare_". Here, "känd" should not be translated as "famous", but as "known": "_He was known as a hard-working midfielder_".


----------

