# Swedish: Jag har läste det här igor kvall i en Svensk hälsa forum



## Arcadian

Jag har läste det här igor kvall i en Svensk hälsa forum att när man ska åka ut för exercera till exempel, det är bäst att först placera vikten på fronten ball av varje footerna för bättre balans och exercera.

I read this last night in a Swedish health forum that when going out to exercise for example, it is best to first place the weight on the front ball of each foot for better balance and exercise.

Is this a correct translation as I've never heard of it ?


----------



## MattiasNYC

Mmm... no. I would say it isn't correct. At least it isn't a 'good' translation.

Are you saying you read the translation or is the translation yours?


----------



## Arcadian

MattiasNYC said:


> Mmm... no. I would say it isn't correct. At least it isn't a 'good' translation.
> 
> Are you saying you read the translation or is the translation yours?



As I couldn't find the original post on the health forum I wrote it out again in Swedish for the practice. Why was it not very good ? 

The last translation based on the fact that I've never heard about placing ones' weight on the front ball of each foot helps one's balance when running, rather overbalancing....


----------



## MattiasNYC

There are a few things that are off. Honestly I'm not sure what the rules are for simply rewriting sentences, but the first one is the "ball" of the foot.






I think this should be "främre fotsulan".

As for the actual suggestion I think that because some people under/overpronate and/or heel strike their balance may indeed improve by striking on the ball of the foot, or "forefoot strike" as runners often call it.

For the rest of the sentence:

Jag har läste det här ig*o*r kv*a*ll *i* e*n* Svensk hälsa forum att när man ska *åka ut* för *exercera *till exempel,* det är* bäst att först placera vikten på* fronten ball av varje footerna* för bättre balans och *exercera*.

The parts in red I think are either simple spelling errors (spell check perhaps) or a different words should be chosen... or the order is wrong. Do you want to give it another go or do you want me to just rewrite it?


----------



## Arcadian

Yes that'd be great if you could rewrite it thanks otherwise it would get far too difficult at this stage.

I've just spent ten minutes on the balls of my feet around the house which are now aching quite a bit, but can now definitely see how it does help to keep in almost perfect balance, as well as running as I think you said earlier.

On reflection I think the next thing that came to mind, was those society women whose heels are like mini stilts forcing them to stand virtually on tip toe and similar to opera ballerinas on their toes for a good say twenty minutes at a time, could well be the reason for walking or running on the balls of both feet as well. And probably why elderly folk can get very tottery unless they have a walking stick.

I'll be keeping on my toes too in future


----------



## MattiasNYC

_Jag har läste det här ig*o*r kv*a*ll *i* e*n* Svensk hälsa forum att när man ska *åka ut* för *exercera *till exempel,* det är* bäst att först placera vikten på* fronten ball av varje footerna* för bättre balans och *exercera*._

Jag har läste ig*å*r kv*ä*ll *på* e*tt* Svenskt häls*o*forum att när man ska *motionera* till exempel,* är* *det* bäst att först placera vikten på* främre fotsulan *för bättre balans och *träning*.

So 

- "Läsa på ett forum". I could be wrong but to me "på" would be a more common proposition here. I suppose one could think of it similarly to reading _in _a paper, but on the other hand we are _on _the internet. Same in Swedish.

- "Motionera" instead of "exercera". While I've heard the Swedish word "exercis" it was always used to denote a military drill as far as I recall. So "exercera" just doesn't seem right. "Motionera" on the other hand is the general term I think we'd use to talk about general exercise to maintain health.

- "gå ut för att motionera". This is debatable but if we're talking about exercising generally then I think this works better since it simply implies leaving one's home. If it's "åka ut" then I imagine some sort of vehicle and some sort of longer trip, perhaps where in context we're saying we're traveling to our home on the country side where we normally train cross-country skiing or something. If we already mentioned that destination then "vi kan åka ut och träna i helgen" makes sense.

- "är det" vs. "det är". Common mistake. No idea what the rule is.

- "varje fot". In at least Swedish it seems superfluous to mention both feet. Once you mention the body part "fotsulan" I think it's clear it's both. You could write "på främre fotsulorna" (plural) but I think Swedes would typically just write it the way I did.

- "Träning" instead of "exercera". In this second case I think this word will imply better that we're strengthening or improving the body due to the specific way we execute the exercise (landing on the ball). "Motionera" won't work, "exercera" as I mentioned is 'odd', and so this seems like the better option.

------------

Incidentally, I switched from heel striking to mid- forefoot striking about a decade ago and it was an improvement. But this is a type of adjustment nobody should make quickly since it's a recipe for getting injured. Just fyi.


----------



## Arcadian

All very interesting indeed thank you, quite a lot to take in but much more in depth rather than just a few short sentences.

Firstly I think the thing that struck me immediately was how close some of the words you’ve highlighted are to the English language of today and which soon gave me the overall concept of heel and toe. On the other hand I’d never heard of the word “pronate” before, so after a quick check I think the opposite of this is that one presumably has flat feet ?

However what I did discover was by consciously placing my body weight onto the front balls of my feet, I was able to keep my balance much more easily though remembering it is taking some doing. So like you I’m now switching from heel striking to ball of foot striking, though now wondering what sort of injury you were thinking of !

Secondly it would seem just like in English, that there can be many examples in a particularly long sentence or paragraph being interpreted in two or more different underlying ways, because of these little pronouns (på ?) always at the back of one’s mind. So I would guess that this is something that one just has to learn, remember and get used to just as in any foreign language. Nevertheless it’s all been extremely useful to be able to delve into and be prepared and forewarned thank you.

Is it the same for Swedes learning English and do you hopefully have any examples ?


----------



## MattiasNYC

Arcadian said:


> All very interesting indeed thank you, quite a lot to take in but much more in depth rather than just a few short sentences.
> 
> Firstly I think the thing that struck me immediately was how close some of the words you’ve highlighted are to the English language of today and which soon gave me the overall concept of heel and toe. On the other hand I’d never heard of the word “pronate” before, so after a quick check I think the opposite of this is that one presumably has flat feet ?



I think being flatfooted or not is a different matter. Honestly I have a hard time remembering the nuances of these things. The main takeaway from it is that there's a way in which the foot would move ideally in an ideal person, I think, and that most of us aren't and thus we deviate from that. Shoes can be either "stability" shoes or shoes that offer mere "guidance" although the distinction is vague. (I'm talking about running shoes btw)



Arcadian said:


> However what I did discover was by consciously placing my body weight onto the front balls of my feet, I was able to keep my balance much more easily though remembering it is taking some doing. So like you I’m now switching from heel striking to ball of foot striking, though now wondering what sort of injury you were thinking of !



The danger when switching is that you start using muscles and tendons to different degrees and perhaps differently than you did before the switch. If you imagine being barefoot and standing on a stool and jumping down on the floor there's a very different sensation between landing on your heels and landing on your forefoot. If you land on your heels, other than hurting, you also start cushioning the blow by bending your knees and using your quads etc. to counteract the downward motion. If you instead land on your forefoot the calf is going to activate a lot more to soften the impact. So the body's "suspension" happens to different degrees at different points.

If you're running and are used to heel striking the calf is likely going to do less work to cushion the impact when you land, and once you start with forefoot strikes it will increase the amount of work it does. Unfortunately it's not only about the calf though, which after all is just a big muscle you can train fairly easily. It's also about the tissues that connect to it, meaning tendons etc. So now if you're all of a sudden forefoot striking there's a lot more stress on your Achilles tendon.

So that's where a fair amount of runners get problems as they begin to transition. Add to that all the other muscles and tendons etc. that are involved from say the thigh on down and it's easy to overdo it. Especially if you're no longer 18 years old. I actually transitioned away from heel to midfoot, not forefoot. So right now I'm betting about 70% of my foot strikes are on the mid, with about 5% on the heel, and the rest forefoot. With shoes of course.

So just take it easy (I'm still talking about running btw).

---

As an aside: There was a trend about 15 years ago or so where "minimalist" running was the thing. It was all about being natural. So people went from pretty cushioned shoes to "race flats" with minimal support, structure, guidance and cushioning, all the way to "foot gloves" basically, the Vibram Five Fingers being the main one I remember. Plenty of people loved it. Plenty of people got injured.

Today's trend is more cushion it seems, albeit with materials that offer more energy return at the end of your running gait-cycle.

---




Arcadian said:


> Secondly it would seem just like in English, that there can be many examples in a particularly long sentence or paragraph being interpreted in two or more different underlying ways, because of these little pronouns (på ?) always at the back of one’s mind. So I would guess that this is something that one just has to learn, remember and get used to just as in any foreign language. Nevertheless it’s all been extremely useful to be able to delve into and be prepared and forewarned thank you.
> 
> Is it the same for Swedes learning English and do you hopefully have any examples ?



I can't recall what it was like learning English because I was so young when I did. I think we started when I was 8, and it continued for a long time. I mean at least through high school. Add to the copious amount of entertainment we consume and it all felt pretty organic. If anything I think it's idioms and terminology relating to specific fields that are hard to decipher, and of course the difference between AE and BE. But yeah, it's just a matter of learning the rules and then the exceptions and the idioms I think.

PS: I should have maybe replied in Swedish, but I'm tired and under time constraints so.. next time


----------



## AutumnOwl

MattiasNYC said:


> _Jag har läste det här ig*o*r kv*a*ll *i* e*n* Svensk hälsa forum att när man ska *åka ut* för *exercera *till exempel,* det är* bäst att först placera vikten på* fronten ball av varje footerna* för bättre balans och *exercera*._
> 
> Jag har läste ig*å*r kv*ä*ll *på* e*tt* Svenskt häls*o*forum att när man ska *motionera* till exempel,* är* *det* bäst att först placera vikten på* främre fotsulan *för bättre balans och *träning*.


Just a few corrections on MattiasNYC:s translatation:
Jag har läste ig*å*r kv*ä*ll *på* e*tt* Svenskt häls*o*forum att när man ska *motionera* till exempel

I would use
"Jag läste i går kväll på ett svenskt hälsoforum ..." or
"Jag har läst på ett svenskt hälsoforum ..." 
I prefer "läste i går kväll" and not to use the combination of "har läst" and "i går kväll", to me the "har läst" is better without a mentioning a time.
Unless the name of the website was "Svenskt hälsoforum" (and then it would be "läste i går kväll på Svenskt hälsoforum ...), the word svenskt is not spelled with a capital letter.


----------



## MattiasNYC

AutumnOwl said:


> Just a few corrections on MattiasNYC:s translatation:
> Jag har läste ig*å*r kv*ä*ll *på* e*tt* Svenskt häls*o*forum att när man ska *motionera* till exempel
> 
> I would use
> "Jag läste i går kväll på ett svenskt hälsoforum ..." or
> "Jag har läst på ett svenskt hälsoforum ..."



Yes, of course. I'm not sure why I didn't correct those first words. I agree with both that and the reason behind it.

Thanks for catching that.


----------



## Arcadian

Hej Mattias. Jag tänker att en väg att börja de grammär sektion är att vi finna topicer eller hobbier av interest mellan oss och korrigera mistags som jag åka fram när vi går framåt. Vad tänker du ?


----------



## Arcadian

Arcadian said:


> Hej Mattias. Jag tänker att en väg att börja de grammär sektion är att vi finna topicer eller hobbier av interest mellan oss och korrigera mistags som jag åka fram när vi går framåt. Vad tänker du ?


Hi Matthias are you OK ?


----------



## Arcadian

Arcadian said:


> Hi Matthias are you OK ?


Strange....


----------



## serbianfan

Arcadian, I think that if you want someone to help you regularly with your Swedish, it would be better to send them a private message.


----------



## Arcadian

Already have several times to Matthias earlier thanks. 

My whole point is that rather than wading through for me meaningless and dreary grammar lessons just like learning even drearier Swedish books, and as I said earlier below I've been waiting for a reply from him or any native speaker of Swedish.
____________________

Tuesday at 6:50 PM

Hej Mattias. Jag tänker att en väg att börja de grammär sektion är att vi finna topicer eller hobbier av interest mellan oss och korrigera mistags som jag åka fram när vi går framåt. Vad tänker du ?

Hi Mattias. I think one way to begin the grammar section is for us to find topics or hobbies of interest between us and correct mistakes that I make as we move forward. What do you think ?


----------



## winenous

AutumnOwl said:


> I would use
> "Jag läste i går kväll på ett svenskt hälsoforum ..." or
> "Jag har läst på ett svenskt hälsoforum ..."
> I prefer "läste i går kväll" and not to use the combination of "har läst" and "i går kväll", to me the "har läst" is better without a mentioning a time.


As a useful rule of thumb for English speakers, I would say that the use of the perfect and simple past tenses in Scandinavian languages is identical to English usage. There may exceptions (which I am sure will now be pointed out if they exist), but I have never encountered any so far.


----------



## Arcadian

winenous said:


> As a useful rule of thumb for English speakers, I would say that the use of the perfect and simple past tenses in Scandinavian languages is identical to English usage. There may exceptions (which I am sure will now be pointed out if they exist), but I have never encountered any so far.



Finally got there thanks a lot Winenous !! 

Ok at a guess as I still hate English grammar even today I would assume it's....

"I read a James Bond book" by Ian Fleming, can also mean "I have read" a James Bond book by Ian Fleming.

Firstly are there any other versions of the "read" words possible whether pronounced reed or red ?" For example "I always enjoy a good read".

Secondly which would be the perfect tenses and the past tenses in the above ?

Finally which Swedish words apply or don't apply to all the English "read" examples above ?

This is why I think the inclusion of a "Grammar Reference Forum" as well as the existing "Word Reference Forum" could also perhaps be very helpful in whatever other foreign languages are required as well ?

Hope this makes sense….

______________


----------



## winenous

Simple past: "I read"/"Jag läste"
Perfect: "I have read"/"Jag har läst" (it uses "to have" in both languages)

"Jag läste i går kväll på ett svenskt forum..." -> "I read yesterday in a Swedish forum..."
"Jag har läst på ett svenskt hälsoforum..." ->  "I have read in a Swedish forum..."    
These sound most most natural in both languages. Though I think if you swapped the simple past and perfect forms it is not exactly wrong.


----------



## winenous

Arcadian said:


> This is why I think the inclusion of a "Grammar Reference Forum" as well as the existing "Word Reference Forum" could also perhaps be very helpful in whatever other foreign languages are required as well ?


Don't get too hung up about the name of the forum. I am sure grammar questions are valid too. Though it might be more productive for you to find an introduction to grammar for most of your information, and get back to us here if there are unclear points.

This looks like a pretty good starting point, but I am sure there are others:
Swedish grammar - Wikipedia
(Though do bear in mind that grammatical terminology sadly does vary, and I see immediately that this grammar uses different terms to the one I used above.)


----------



## Arcadian

Thanks but oh dear oh dear, I haven't a hope in hell when I opened your link and saw yet more awful dreary grammar sorry....

This is why and I do emphasise for me alone, learning from my written mistakes on the "Grammar Reference Forum" would be immediate and memorised more or less instantly the same as speaking the language face to face. I don't know if there are any other members on here who have the same problems of learning a language and would like myself prefer immediate written practice of mutual interest….?

Anyway this is why I personally need to begin in the "Grammar Reference Forum" by hopefully finding any native Swedish member(s) with topics or hobbies of mutual interest say classic cars, favourite authors, books etc. correcting mistakes that I make as things move forwards.


----------



## serbianfan

winenous said:


> As a useful rule of thumb for English speakers, I would say that the use of the perfect and simple past tenses in Scandinavian languages is identical to English usage. There may exceptions (which I am sure will now be pointed out if they exist), but I have never encountered any so far.


I have quite often found that educated Norwegians write things like "I 1993 har regjeringen bestemt at..." I don't know whether this is considered correct or not.


----------



## winenous

serbianfan said:


> I have quite often found that educated Norwegians write things like "I 1993 har regjeringen bestemt at..." I don't know whether this is considered correct or not.


OK, I've encountered an exception now - I cannot imagine anyone would say the English equivalent. I knew I was tempting fate 

Presumably some would also write "I 1993 bestemte regjeringen  at..."?

However, your example does seem to break the "rules" expressed here, which *are *consistent with English usage (apart from number 3 for the preteritum, which I have always viewed as a special use of "var")
Grammatikk – Norsk for deg!

It is also explicitly said to be incorrect by Riksmålsforbundet, using an example sentence very similar to yours
Kapittel 3 Verbet - Side 3 av 7 - Riksmålsforbundet

I couldn't find anything official for bokmål - from Språkrådet for example.


----------



## Arcadian

Jag är läser en jätte mycket intressant bok på Svensk om Stockholm i Andra Världskriget som heter "Sekretararklubben" av Jan Bergman om C-Byrå och deras spioner, den Tysk SS mm under andra världskriget. Har nägon hört av C-Byra eller Bergman det forut, därför att som jag kan inte finna någonting på nättet i Svensk eller Engelsk, bara den här bok på Amazon.

Tack.
_______________________

Sekreterarklubben : C-byråns kvinnliga agenter under andra världskriget : Bergman, Jan, Sokcic, Miroslav: Amazon.co.uk: Books

"Möt de unga kvinnorna som riskerade livet, misshandlades och skadades både fysiskt och psykiskt i sitt arbete inom den svenska underrättelsetjänsten mellan 1939 och 1945, kvinnor som i det tysta gjorde stora insatser för sitt land. Vilka var de? Varifrån kom de? Varför fick de aldrig något erkännande?

Fotografen, tv-producenten och författaren Jan Bergman berättar här den osminkade sanningen om kvinnorna i underrättelsetjänsten under andra världskriget. En av dem var hans egen mor. Det är berättelsen om den hemligaste delen av den svenska militära underrättelsetjänsten - C-byrån - och de som jobbade åt den, en berättelse som kastar nytt ljus över en mörk tid i vår moderna historia."


----------



## MattiasNYC

Arcadian said:


> Hi Matthias are you OK ?





Arcadian said:


> Strange....



Japp... Har bara varit upptagen med jobb och annat så jag har inte haft tid att svara.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Arcadian said:


> Jag är läser en jätte mycket intressant bok på Svensk om Stockholm i Andra Världskriget som heter "Sekretararklubben" av Jan Bergman om *C-Byrå* och deras spioner, den Tysk SS mm under andra världskriget. Har nägon hört av *C-Byra* eller Bergman det forut, därför att som jag kan inte finna någonting på nättet i Svensk eller Engelsk, bara den här bok på Amazon.



Generellt sätt så tror jag att namn på till exempel organisationer ofta har bestämd form, så det är allstå "C-Byrån". "(en) Byrå", men _den_ byrån. *C-*Byrå*n*. Det är lika med "Utrikesdepartementet", alltså "(ett) departement", men "_*Utrikes*_departement_*et*_".

Wikipedia har litet information om det hela, och en del referenser... Jag har inte läst mycket om det hela vad jag minns. Det är möjligt att jag sett något på TV för länge sedan, alltså typ 80-tal..!


----------

