# Just started Learning Swedish - First Question ?



## garydpoole

Hello all

I've just started learning Swedish this week and am aware of the subtle way in the subject and verb can swap positions  if a sentence starts with something other than the subject.

However, I've just encountered this simple phrase:

_Julia har ett sovrum, och det har Jesper också._

But I can't work out in this example, the reason why after the "och", subject / verb inversion has occurred ?

Any help with the above would be much appreciated !

Regards

Gary


----------



## AutumnOwl

Even if it looks like a case of subject/verb inversion in the second half of the phrase it actually isn't, as there are two subjects in it. The word "det" in Swedish can function as a subject, and it's called formellt subjekt while "Jesper" is egentligt subjekt. It's one of the mystifications of the Swedish language. You can read about it here: Vad är subjekt? | Satsdelar.se


----------



## Ben Jamin

[Quote wisely and trim to the relevant part]
If "det" is the subject so what is "Jesper" in this sentence? An object?


----------



## Cliff Barnes

The same "problem" exists in Norwegian. det-setninger: http://grammatikk.com/pdf/DetSetninger.pdf


----------



## myšlenka

AutumnOwl said:


> Even if it looks like a case of subject/verb inversion in the second half of the phrase it actually isn't, as there are two subjects in it. The word "det" in Swedish can function as a subject, and it's called formellt subjekt while "Jesper" is egentligt subjekt.


This phenomenon does exist in Swedish, but it does not apply in this case. This is a case of inversion. _Det_ is the object while _Jesper_ is the subject.


----------



## garydpoole

That's good to hear as my translation of the sentence was, "Julia has a bedroom and Jesper has it as well".

Assuming this is a case of inversion, which part of the sentence is actually triggering the inversion ?

And I'm only on chapter 2


----------



## myšlenka

garydpoole said:


> Assuming this is a case of inversion, which part of the sentence is actually triggering the inversion ?


It is a case of inversion and is triggered by putting the object at the front. Thus it is an instance of what you wrote in the opening question: _subject and verb can swap positions if a sentence starts with something other than the subject_.


----------



## DerFrosch

garydpoole said:


> That's good to hear as my translation of the sentence was, "Julia has a bedroom and Jesper has it as well".


I would translate the sentence as "Julia has a bedroom and so has/does Jesper".


----------



## raumar

garydpoole said:


> That's good to hear as my translation of the sentence was, "Julia has a bedroom and Jesper has it as well".



I believe that a better English translation would be "Julia has a bedroom, and so has Jesper". So you can find inversion in this kind of sentence in English as well.

_Cross-posted._


----------



## garydpoole

myšlenka said:


> It is a case of inversion and is triggered by putting the object at the front. Thus it is an instance of what you wrote in the opening question: _subject and verb can swap positions if a sentence starts with something other than the subject_.



Ok, I think that I've got my head around this - "det" is an object pronoun and it has replaced, "sovrum" which was originally the object of, "Julia har en sovrum...". And because "det" is not the subject of the sentence, inversion has occurred ?



raumar said:


> I believe that a better English translation would be "Julia has a bedroom, and so has Jesper". So you can find inversion in this kind of sentence in English as well.



However, to be honest, I'm having a problem making the jump to this subtle change in translation as I seem too preoccupied with translating the pronoun, "det" as "it" ?

I guess when I become more familiar with the language, this will all make more sense !

Many thanks


----------



## raumar

My problem with "Julia has a bedroom and Jesper has it as well" is that it looks like Julia and Jesper share the same bedroom. Al least it looks that way to me, but that may of course be because I'm not a native English speaker. Maybe you should think of "det" as "that" rather than "it", but other people on this forum can explain the grammar much better than I can.


----------



## garydpoole

After some further reading, I've discovered that "det" can not only act as a pronoun and replace a single noun, but can also replace a complete phrase or clause.

Hence, would I be correct in thinking that in the original quotation:

_Julia har ett sovrum, och det har Jesper också._

"Det" is actually replacing, "ett sovrum", not just "sovrum". Hence, "Julia has a bedroom and Jesper has a bedroom (or "one") too" ?

Regards


----------



## Parlons Suédois

I'd say that phrases of the form "... och det <verb> <person> också" follow a fixed formula which defies grammatic analysis, where 'det', if anything, refers to the entire preceding phrase (in this case "har ett sovrum"), much like 'so' in "...and so does <person>".


----------



## elroy

_ Julia has a bedroom, and so does Jesper.
 Julia has a bedroom, and so has Jesper. 
_
This really isn't as complicated as some people are making it seem.

You could say (although you probably wouldn't):

_Julia har ett sovrum, och ett sovrum har Jesper också._

All that's happening *here *is that "det" is replacing "ett sovrum."  Yes, "det" has numerous other functions, but they're not relevant here.

This is not like "so."  "So" replaces the entire *verb phrase*, whereas "det" here replaces the *object* only.

_Julia has a bedroom and so does Jesper._ ("so" replaces "have a bedroom")
_Julia har ett sovrum, och det har Jesper också._ ("det" replaces "ett sovrum")

"So does Jesper" is an idiomatic translation, but a translation that better reflects what's going on in the Swedish is:

_Julia has a bedroom, and Jesper has one too.
_
There are only two differences between the Swedish and the English constructions:

1.) Swedish uses "det" (literally, "that") whereas English uses "one."
2.) In English, starting with the object would be highly marked and completely unidiomatic in most contexts.


----------



## anderslilja

No, you could not say:

_Julia har ett sovrum, och ett sovrum har Jesper också.
_
In order for this structure to work, "ett sovrum" would have to be replaced by "det".

It isn't a case of something you could, but would rarely be, used. It would simply be wrong.


----------



## elroy

anderslilja said:


> It would simply be wrong.


 Even in a poetic context?

In English, it would definitely work in a poem:

_Julia has a room, and a room has Jesper also. 
_
Here's a real example from the song "Zacchaeus was a wee little man":

_Zacchaeus was a wee little man, a wee little man was he._


----------



## DerFrosch

Personally, I don't really think it's stranger than "_Julia has a room, and a room has Jesper also_".



elroy said:


> Julia has a bedroom, and so does Jesper.
> Julia has a bedroom, and so has Jesper.


According to this site, "_has_" is used in British English:


> My brother has a new toy, and so do I.   (Am Eng) / have I.  (Br Eng)


Can you confirm this, garydpoole? Would you use "does" or "has"?


elroy said:


> This really isn't as complicated as some people are making it seem.


Neither is it quite as straightforward as you make it seem. 
Consider the following sentence:
_Jag bor ensam, och det gör min bror också. _(I live alone, and so does my brother.)
The first clause, "_Jag bor ensam_", has neither an object nor a subject complement which "_det" _could replace. Instead, "_det_" refers to the verb phrase.


----------



## garydpoole

DerFrosch said:


> Personally, I don't really think it's stranger than "_Julia has a room, and a room has Jesper also_".
> 
> According to this site, "_has_" is used in British English:
> 
> Can you confirm this, garydpoole? Would you use "does" or "has"?



British English _theoretically_ would be, _"Julia has a bedroom and so has Jesper".
_
However, to be honest, you're more likely to hear, _"...and so does Jesper"_ !

But it would always be, _"Julia likes pizza and so does Jesper"._


----------



## elroy

DerFrosch said:


> _Jag bor ensam, och det gör min bror också. _(I live alone, and so does my brother.)
> The first clause, "_Jag bor ensam_", has neither an object nor a subject complement which "_det" _could replace. Instead, "_det_" refers to the verb phrase.


 Sure, and that's a different construction. 

I didn't mean to suggest that the whole topic of _det _substitution was simple; I meant to say that in this particular case it's pretty straightforward.


----------



## DerFrosch

elroy said:


> I didn't mean to suggest that the whole topic of _det _substitution was simple; I meant to say that in this particular case it's pretty straightforward.


----------



## Sepia

Could it be that you all totally missed mentioning the main weird difference between a English and other Scandinavian languages - that the "det + verb" is necessary because it is describing a general fact or circumstance? Something that works in a different fashion in English.
(And the "English and OTHER Scandinavian ..." was deliberate.)


----------



## DerFrosch

So...you're saying that English is a Scandinavian language?


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Sepia said:


> (And the "English and OTHER Scandinavian ..." was deliberate.)





DerFrosch said:


> So...you're saying that English is a Scandinavian language?


Yup, English syntax is decidedly Germanic, and some scholars put it in the Northern Germanic rather than Western Germanic box. The fact that roughly half of the English vocabulary is of Latin origin makes no difference. Sadly I don't have any source to cite at the moment as I can't remember their names, but will post back when I've had time to google scholarly.


----------



## DerFrosch

Wilma_Sweden said:


> Yup, English syntax is decidedly Germanic, and some scholars put it in the Northern Germanic rather than Western Germanic box. The fact that roughly half of the English vocabulary is of Latin origin makes no difference. Sadly I don't have any source to cite at the moment as I can't remember their names, but will post back when I've had time to google scholarly.


I'm not following you. Even if you _would _categorize English as a North Germanic language (which I've never heard of before), how does that make it a Scandinavian language? Frankly, the mere suggestion seems quite absurd to me.


----------



## Brannoc

I was under the impression in a recent thread that it went back to old English as it was similar to old Norse....


----------



## DerFrosch

Brannoc said:


> I was under the impression in a recent thread that it went back to old English as it was similar to old Norse....


What went back to Old English?


----------



## Segorian

The notion that English is a Scandinavian language (that was influenced by, but eventually replaced, Old English) is a fringe hypothesis advanced by Jan Terje Faarlund and Joseph Emonds. Their arguments do not seem to hold up to scrutiny. In particular, their main claim appears to be that a number of similarities between Scandinavian and English grammatical structures are more reasonably explained by a common origin than by borrowing between languages. But then this “Scandinavian” language that we call English would have had to borrow from Old English a much larger number of grammatical structures—which it has in common with that language, but not with any of the Scandinavian languages—thereby contradicting the fundamental claim.

In any case, the evolution of Old English into Middle and then Modern English is well documented historically.


----------

