# Swedish: "...det du skrivit"



## Sorror

Hey,

the original sentence is as follows: "_Du kan till och med be en handledare korrigera det du skrivit._"

And I'm stuck at the very end. "_You can even ask a tutor to correct... (det du skrivit)_". How can Google translate that ending to "_...what you have written_"? Wouldn't the proper supinum form be "_har du skrivit_" (or "_du har skrivit_", not sure if there should be an inversion at the end)? What is so special about "_det_" that makes "_har_" unnecessary when constructing past perfect tense?


----------



## mosletha

Swedish very often omits 'har' for this tense. For strong verbs it's very easy to recognize, since you can't really mistake 'skrivit' for anything else. You are also correct that it would be 'det du har skrivit' instead of 'det har du skrivit' in this case. 

While I can't explain what the actual rule is for when you can and when you can't omit it (since I am not Swedish), I can tell you that we never omit it in Norwegian or Danish, and that your quote would be considered very incorrect in those languages.


----------



## Ogago

"_Du kan till och med be en handledare korrigera det du skrivit._" is easily understandable and this simplification is commonly used by Swedish speakers.
"_Du kan till och med be en handledare korrigera det du *har* skrivit._" is better, but the "har" is understood anyway.
"_Du kan till och med be en handledare korrigera det *som* du har skrivit._" is still better but is commonly ommited of the same reason as "har".

Why do we have these simplifications? Is it because journalists want to save space in their articles and headlines? Is it because language teachers in school are becoming sloppier with time? Is it because we Swedes don't have a strong feeling for their language and noone really cares? Or is it simply not important?

Languages is like an organims that evolves (or devolves). Todays Swedish isn't what it was like a hundred years ago, and will not be what it is like a hundred years in in the future.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Ogago said:


> "_Du kan till och med be en handledare korrigera det du skrivit._" is easily understandable and this simplification is commonly used by Swedish speakers.
> "_Du kan till och med be en handledare korrigera det du *har* skrivit._" is better, but the "har" is understood anyway.
> "_Du kan till och med be en handledare korrigera det *som* du har skrivit._" is still better but is commonly ommited of the same reason as "har".
> 
> Why do we have these simplifications? Is it because journalists want to save space in their articles and headlines? Is it because language teachers in school are becoming sloppier with time? Is it because we Swedes don't have a strong feeling for their language and noone really cares? Or is it simply not important?
> 
> Languages is like an organims that evolves (or devolves). Todays Swedish isn't what it was like a hundred years ago, and will not be what it is like a hundred years in in the future.


I think it is a similar process that has eliminated altogether the auxiliary verb from the Russian past tense (originally a kind of Present Perfect). The same process has recently began in Norwegian, where "ha" has disappeared from *past conditional forms*. (Jeg kunne ha sett). At the same time the infinitive form has been replaced by past participle in *expressions with modal verbs*) (Jeg kunne se > Jeg kunne sett) and (has) made *the two* identical.


----------



## Sorror

It's a case of purposely omitting an  auxiliary verb then, not something that results from any kind of grammatical structure. Good to know. For me, it's a rather huge step towards simplifying the language, and I'm not sure if I like it, to be honest. Thanks guys.


----------



## Ben Jamin

It is important to notice that the dropping of ha/hatt in Swedish only occurs in subordinate clauses so far, so it *is *related to the grammatical structure.


----------



## myšlenka

mosletha said:


> While I can't explain what the actual rule is for when you can and when you can't omit it (since I am not Swedish), I can tell you that we never omit it in Norwegian or Danish, and that your quote would be considered very incorrect in those languages.


 Oh yes, we do! It's true that we don't omit it in this context, but it is very common in conditionals.



Ben Jamin said:


> The same process has recently began in Norwegian, where "ha" has disappeared from *past conditional forms*. (Jeg kunne ha sett). At the same time the infinitive form has been replaced by past participle in *expressions with modal verbs*) (Jeg kunne se > Jeg kunne sett) and (has)  made *the two* identical.


So, a real event in the past is homophonous with an irrealis past tense? That's not very plausible.



Sorror said:


> It's a case of purposely omitting an auxiliary verb then, not something that results from any kind of grammatical structure. Good to know. For me, it's a rather huge step towards simplifying the language, and I'm not sure if I like it, to be honest. Thanks guys.


Omission of _ha_ in Swedish is more complicated than that. The auxiliary _ha _cannot be omitted if you want a perfect aspect interpretation of the verbal phrase in combination with modals.

_1) Jag skulle ha skrivit artikelen på onsdag_ - this means that I should have written the article by or on Wednesday.
_2) Jag skulle skrivit artikelen på onsdag_ - this can only mean that I should have written the article on Wednesday.

Given that it only works in a) main clauses with a past tense modal which don't require a perfect aspect interpretation and b) in subordinate clauses (like Ben Jamin mentioned), it looks rather complicated.


Ben Jamin said:


> It is important to notice that the dropping of ha/hatt in Swedish only occurs in subordinate clauses so far, so it *is *related to the grammatical structure.


See example 2) above.
But yes, _ha _omission doesn't really work in main clauses given that _ha_ is the only auxiliary.


----------



## Ogago

> Omission of _ha_ in Swedish is more complicated than that. The auxiliary _ha _cannot be omitted if you want a perfect aspect interpretation of the verbal phrase in combination with modals.
> 
> _1) Jag skulle ha skrivit artikel*e*n på onsdag_ - this means that I should have written the article by or on Wednesday.
> _2) Jag skulle skrivit artikel*e*n på onsdag_ - this can only mean that I should have written the article on Wednesday.



This is not how I would express it if I would like to give just that message. I would write/say it like
1) Jag skulle ha skrivit artikeln tills onsdag.
2) Jag skulle ha skrivit artikeln på onsdagen.

I wouldn't omit the "ha", it doesn't sound right in this sentence, not in my Swedish ears.
If "by Wednesday" means that I have a deadline to write the article set to Wednesday, then I would've used "tills onsdag". 
But if I intend to write it on the very Wednesday, then it is "på onsdagen." 
Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## myšlenka

Ogago said:


> This is not how I would express it if I would like to give just that message.


Well, I wasn't looking for an English-to-Swedish translation. I wanted the opposite. The issue is if the examples I gave are acceptable as Swedish sentences and if so, what do they mean.


Ogago said:


> I wouldn't omit the "ha", it doesn't sound right in this sentence, not in my Swedish ears.


I googled "jag skulle skrivit" and I got more than 500,000 hits while "jag skulle ha skrivit" gets 1,6 million. Thus, the one without _ha_ constitutes about a fourth of the instances of the construction in question. Would you say that they are all wrong?


----------



## Ogago

Ben Jamin says "It is important to notice that the dropping of ha/hatt  in Swedish only occurs in subordinate clauses so far" and I, together  with my Swedish ears, concur.
But you are right that it is seen/heard now and then. Perhaps this will be Standard Swedish eventually.


----------

