# Swedish: därför att han inte hade tid



## stormvd

This is an example from a swedish grammar book: deskriptiv svensk grammmatik, page 180.
I can't understand why the position of inte changes ;also, i don't know if inte should be stressed or not?
The book says the following: Huvudsatser inledda med för och ty har samma funktion som bisatser inledda med eftersom och 
därför att. Dessa huvudsatser kan inte stå ensamma. 

Han kunde inte komma idag, för han hade inte tid.  (bold letters and underlines is according to the book)
Han kunde inte komma idag,* därför att *han inte hade tid. (bold letters and underlines is according to the book)


thank you in advance .


----------



## etaro

stormvd said:


> This is an example from a swedish grammar book: deskriptiv svensk grammmatik, page 180.
> I can't understand why the position of inte changes ;also, i don't know if inte should be stressed or not?
> The book says the following: Huvudsatser inledda med för och ty har samma funktion som bisatser inledda med eftersom och
> därför att. Dessa huvudsatser kan inte stå ensamma.
> 
> Han kunde inte komma idag, för han hade inte tid.  (bold letters and underlines is according to the book)
> Han kunde inte komma idag,* därför att *han inte hade inte tid. (bold letters and underlines is according to the book)
> 
> 
> thank you in advance .



I can't imagen "Han kunde inte komma idag,* därför att *han inte hade inte tid" is correct. It has to be a missprint with the last inte.

Han kunde inte komma idag, för han hade inte tid. (bold letters and underlines is according to the book)
Han kunde inte komma idag,* därför att *han inte hade tid. (bold letters and underlines is according to the book)

After that I'm afraid im lost. I know that I would never say "därför att han hade inte tid" but I can't really tell you why... It's "för han hade inte" or "därför att han inte hade".


----------



## timtfj

etaro said:


> I can't imagen "Han kunde inte komma idag,* därför att *han inte hade inte tid" is correct. It has to be a missprint with the last inte.
> 
> Han kunde inte komma idag, för han hade inte tid. (bold letters and underlines is according to the book)
> Han kunde inte komma idag,* därför att *han inte hade tid. (bold letters and underlines is according to the book)
> 
> After that I'm afraid im lost. I know that I would never say "därför att han hade inte tid" but I can't really tell you why... It's "för han hade inte" or "därför att han inte hade".


Is it because *att *introduces a subordinate clause but *för* doesn't? That would be the explanation in Norwegian, where *ikke* goes before the verb in subordinate clauses but after it in main clauses.


----------



## stormvd

Yes you are right it was my mistake, i edited again so the second example is : Han kunde inte komma idag,* därför att *han inte hade  tid. (bold letters and underlines is according to the book) 
tusen tack!


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

timtfj said:


> Is it because *att *introduces a subordinate clause but *för* doesn't? That would be the explanation in Norwegian, where *ikke* goes before the verb in subordinate clauses but after it in main clauses.


I think you're onto something - coordinating conjunctions such as och, men, eller, utan, ty and för typically coordinate main clauses (but the main clauses starting with those conjunctions cannot exist on their own, they have to be preceded by another main clause). Subclauses get a different word order, like in Norwegian, and därför att is a subordinating conjunction.

Getting the V2 word order right must be as hard in Norwegian and Danish as in Swedish, if you're not used to it. I'd be surprised if it isn't one of the most common grammar errors that non-native speakers commit, even after decades of speaking the language.


----------



## timtfj

Wilma_Sweden said:


> Getting the V2 word order right must be as hard in Norwegian and Danish as in Swedish, if you're not used to it. I'd be surprised if it isn't one of the most common grammar errors that non-native speakers commit, even after decades of speaking the language.


Typically my difficulty is knowing where the second position actually is, in order to put the verb there. Usually that's because I'm unsure whether something which might be the first element of a clause is part of the clause. For example, getting _Før jeg gjør A, gjør jeg B _right involves deciding whether _Før jeg gjør A_ is an element in the _gjør B_ clause or separate from it.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

timtfj said:


> Typically my difficulty is knowing where the second position actually is, in order to put the verb there. Usually that's because I'm unsure whether something which might be the first element of a clause is part of the clause. For example, getting _Før jeg gjør A, gjør jeg B _right involves deciding whether _Før jeg gjør A_ is an element in the _gjør B_ clause or separate from it.


You should be able to rephrase the elements with SVO word order: Jeg gjør B før jeg gjør A. The part in green is the movable part, time-adverbial-like, that you can put in front of the main clause, causing it to reverse to VS: Før jeg gjør A, gjør jeg B. I hope this makes sense... I found a chart on Wikipedia that works for Swedish, which may or may not be helpful: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsschema.


----------



## timtfj

I'm thinking about the original example some more and trying to illustrate the difference between co-ordinating and subordinating conjuctions.

Let's translate *för* as "because" and *derför att* as "for the reason that". Then we get



with *för*: He couldn't come today, *because* he didn't have time.
with *derför att:* He couldn't come today, *for* the reason *that *he didn't have time.

Although the two English sentences say the same thing, their structure is different.



He couldn't come because something happened. *He didn't have time,* so he didn't come.
He couldn't come for a reason. The reason is *that he didn't have time.*

In the first version, *he didn't have time* is simply a second statement, joined to the first with _because_. _Because_ puts them side by side and says how they're related. In the second, *that he had no time* is a subordinate clause expanding _the reason_. It could equally well be _which he gave in his email_ or even _explained on page 6.

_*Because* needs to be followed by a statement; *that* needs to be followed by a subordinate clause. Similarly in the original example, *för *needs to be followed by a statment and *derför att *needs to be followed by a subordinate clause. But unlike in English, this changes the word order.

I don't know about Swedish, but in Norwegian there are number of adverbs which change position in the same way *inte* does in this example. They're words for things like "not", "never", "always". Since *at* (the Norwegian equivalent of *att*) can sometimes be omitted, this can be quite helpful in disentangling long sentences. The changed word order identifies a subordinate clause; you can then make sense of it by mentally inserting the *at.*


----------



## Lugubert

stormvd said:


> Han kunde inte komma idag, för han hade inte tid.  (bold letters and underlines is according to the book)
> Han kunde inte komma idag,* därför att *han inte hade tid. (bold letters and underlines is according to the book)


For some reason that I can't explain, the first example is what I'd _say_. The second one slightly irritates me. Using a subordinating conjunction, perhaps speaking but surely in writing, my take would be
Han kunde inte komma idag,* eftersom *han inte hade tid.


----------

