# Swedish/Norwegian: present perfect (auxiliary verb)



## mimosa59

Hi,

I'm reading a book in Swedish right now and I'm surprised at how the present perfect is used throughout the book. Here's one example:
"Han sjönk ned i soffan bredvid henne, som ett barn som *blivit *hemskickat från skolan."​

Shouldn't it be "har blivit" instead? Is it common in Swedish to skip the auxiliary verb? 

Thanks!


----------



## Lugubert

I skip them quite often, more in writing (I’m a translator) than in speech, which I think is what many do.

I’d label your example perfect passive. It’s equivalent to "… ett barn som (har) skickats hem från skolan."


----------



## JohanIII

To me, adding "har" here sounds wrong, actually.
I'm not sure what is actually correct, but I'd never use it there.
In Lugubert's equivalent it sounds OK, though.
(proofreader here, though by virtue of sense more than education )


----------



## mimosa59

Thanks! Do you know if it's because it's a subordinate clause? Does it have anything to do with that at all?

 Thanks again!


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

mimosa59 said:


> "...ett barn som *blivit *hemskickat från skolan."



This is a restrictive reduced relative clause, and in those cases the auxiliary verb is - more often than not - left out. Because the main clause is in the past tense, so would the auxiliary verb, if inserted, need to be: ... ett barn som *hade* blivit hemskickat från skolan. 

It does look clumsy and redundant even with the auxiliary verb in the correct tense.


----------



## mimosa59

Thanks a lot!!


----------



## Ben Jamin

Wilma_Sweden said:


> This is a restrictive reduced relative clause, and in those cases the auxiliary verb is - more often than not - left out. Because the main clause is in the past tense, so would the auxiliary verb, if inserted, need to be: ... ett barn som *hade* blivit hemskickat från skolan.
> 
> It does look clumsy and redundant even with the auxiliary verb in the correct tense.



But this construction is not a very old one, is it? I didn’t see it in print before late 1980’s.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Ben Jamin said:


> But this construction is not a very old one, is it? I didn’t see it in print before late 1980’s.


On the contrary, omitted auxiliaries have been more or less standard usage in official writing for a long time, and whether you use that construction or not is a matter of style, not of grammar, both constructions are acceptable. 
Source: European parliament language group


----------



## Mr.TechComm

This doesn't happen in English. 

I am curious to know if this is specific to Swedish, or it is the same in Norwegian, Danish and German. Does anybody know?

By the way... mimosa59, very interesting question! I have had this query since I started learning Swedish, but I never asked.

Cheerio


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Mr.TechComm said:


> This doesn't happen in English.
> 
> I am curious to know if this is specific to Swedish, or it is the same in Norwegian, Danish and German. Does anybody know?
> 
> By the way... mimosa59, very interesting question! I have had this query since I started learning Swedish, but I never asked.
> 
> Cheerio


In English, you have other types of reduced relative clauses, where the auxiliary verb has been left out. NB the relative clause marker 'that' is also left out.
The man [that was/had been] seen begging in the tube station was subsequently mugged. 
In Swedish, the relative clause marker can also be left out in some cases:
Rabl är det godaste vinet [som] jag [har] druckit.
I don't speak German, but Erik Wellander (Riktig Svenska) mentions a German influence.

If you're truly into linguistics, there is a thesis from 2009 (Gothenburg university) about the development of the Swedish perfect tense, by Ida Larsson: "Participles in time - The development of the perfect tense in Swedish" - all in English. 

You might want to open a thread in the Etymology or All languages forum to get input from non-Nordic sources.


----------



## Magb

Mr.TechComm said:


> This doesn't happen in English.
> 
> I am curious to know if this is specific to Swedish, or it is the same in Norwegian, Danish and German. Does anybody know?
> 
> By the way... mimosa59, very interesting question! I have had this query since I started learning Swedish, but I never asked.
> 
> Cheerio


This feature is unique to Swedish as far as I know. Norwegian does however commonly omit auxiliaries in the infinitive before perfects when they directly follow a modal verb, e.g.:
- _ville (ha) blitt_ - "would (have) become"
- _kunne (ha) vært_ - "could (have) been"

Omitting the auxiliary here is standard both in speech and writing. But the phenomenon is very restricted compared to the stuff Swedish does.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Magb said:


> This feature is unique to Swedish as far as I know. Norwegian does however commonly omit auxiliaries in the infinitive before perfects when they directly follow a modal verb, e.g.:
> - _ville (ha) blitt_ - "would (have) become"
> - _kunne (ha) vært_ - "could (have) been"
> 
> Omitting the auxiliary here is standard both in speech and writing. But the phenomenon is very restricted compared to
> the stuff Swedish does.


I haven't got the impression that this omission is standard in formal writing. Can you give any quotations?


----------



## Magb

Ben Jamin said:


> I haven't got the impression that this omission is standard in formal writing. Can you give any quotations?


Not really. You're probably right that it's not too common in formal writing. To be honest I hardly ever read "formal writing" in Norwegian.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Magb said:


> Not really. You're probably right that it's not too common in formal writing. To be honest I hardly ever read "formal writing" in Norwegian.



In my work I either read or write formal Norwegian in 80% of time. I have never met this kind of omission in writing. I hear it mostly on the radio, but I have never heard it from my colleagues at work. If I asked Per Egil Hegge he would probably advised against using it.


----------



## Magb

Ben Jamin said:


> I have never met this kind of omission in writing.


You've never read a newspaper?
"ville vært" (56,000,000 Google hits)
"kunne blitt" (476,000 Google hits)
"måtte hatt" (36,100 Google hits)

I'm aware of the problems with using Google for linguistic research, but the results speak for themselves in this case. The search results are predominantly from newspapers, message boards, etc. I won't argue with your point about formal writing, but I find it hard to believe that you've never seen the omission in writing considering how widespread it is.


----------



## perevoditel

I will only add that this construction is used in Norwegian, too (as based on Google search and what I hear here), but I couldn't find anything in *.dk sites.



Magb said:


> Not really. You're probably right that it's not too common in formal writing. To be honest I hardly ever read "formal writing" in Norwegian.



I haven't ever read it, too, and the last person I remember using "formal" Norwegian was my 1st Norwegian teacher. But he used it only with us, students.


----------

