# Swedish: would be for the purposes of



## Kelso145

Confused about the use of skulle in a sentence that suggest something in the future is going to be a certain way.
For example, if I wanted to say that an event "would be for the purposes of training/hunting etc, etc.", how would I say it...

Say I'm talking about a future event that is supposed to be a certain way, produce a certain outcome.
In English I could simply say .. It would be a kind of training exercise, meaning it is _*intended*_ to be. So would I do it this way:

Like this:

Det skulle vara en slags övningsövning.
Det skulle vara en slags jakt
det skulle vara ett slags spel

Or this way:

Det skulle bli en slags övningsövning.
Det skulle bli en slags jakt
det skulle bli ett slags spel


Thanks


----------



## MattiasNYC

Hmmm... I'm thinking I would use "ska", but I could be wrong about this.

(Fyi: _e*n* slags övningsövning / e*n* slags jakt)_


----------



## Kelso145

to make the question clearer:

What is the difference between these:
det skulle vara ett slags spel
det skulle bli ett slags spel
det kommer att ett slags spel
det kommer bli ett slags spel
For example, if I wanted to say my parents are going to make me do homework as a form of punishment,
Is it:
den skulle bli ett straff 
or
den skulle vara ett straff


----------



## winenous

To answer your first post:

vara - to be (to be for a period of time)
bli - to become (change from one state to another)

So for "to be in a certain way" (using the words in your question) it should be "vara", and in your examples I think that would apply.

But for "to produce a certain outcome" it seems that "bli" would be better if the future event is the actual moment of achievement of that outcome.

(I answer as a foreign speaker of Norwegian, but I have checked online and the usage seems to be the same in Norwegian and Swedish. I wouldn't like to tackle the questions in your second post. But I think there are errors, which makes explaining the differences difficult.)


----------



## Kelso145

winenous said:


> To answer your first post:
> 
> vara - to be (to be for a period of time)
> bli - to become (change from one state to another)
> 
> So for "to be in a certain way" (using the words in your question) it should be "vara", and in your examples I think that would apply.
> 
> But for "to produce a certain outcome" it seems that "bli" would be better if the future event is the actual moment of achievement of that outcome.
> 
> (I answer as a foreign speaker of Norwegian, but I have checked online and the usage seems to be the same in Norwegian and Swedish. I wouldn't like to tackle the questions in your second post. But I think there are errors, which makes explaining the differences difficult.)


Thanks both contributors. So looking like it should be skulle bli then.


----------



## winenous

Kelso145 said:


> Thanks both contributors. So looking like it should be skulle bli then.


I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. 

I thought _vara _would be most appropriate for your examples, and @MattiasNYC thought he would use _ska_. Some may disagree, but that's what we wrote.


----------



## MattiasNYC

I actually think your OP was a bit confusing now that I re-read it:



Kelso145 said:


> a sentence that suggest something in the future *is going to be *a certain way.
> For example, if I wanted to say that an event "*would be *for the purposes of training/hunting etc, etc.", how would I say it...



"is going to be" and "would be" aren't the same thing. If you're proposing something to me (in English) as a possible option/intent then I'd expect "would be" to be sufficient. With "is going to be" I think you'd need other words in context to make the point that it is about what is proposed. In contrast "would be" I think isn't how we would express that something in the future for sure is going to be a certain way, we'd just say it that way - "it's going to be".

In other words I think "is going to be" possibly could be used both ways, whereas "would be" is never a certain.

So with that in mind I actually think "skulle" could be preferred over "ska" in this case when translating the actual sample sentence you wrote.. on second thought..

As for "vara" versus "bli" I think both works in conjunction when talking about a possible intended future event, but it depends on the context and I agree with Winenous on that.

The nuance then would maybe be that if you're expressing a future trip or event as an existing entity then I agree that "det skulle vara" seems appropriate, for example "det skulle vara ett träningsläger". And if as Winenous wrote you're talking about the outcome of something "bli" would work better, for example if you're talking about a family vacation but you're proposing bringing your triathlon bikes (hardly leisure bikes) and your kid says "men det skulle *bli *ett träningsläger", because of the implication that you'd just spend a bunch of time training which would turn the vacation into a training camp.

Not the greatest examples, and admittedly some of my Swedish is a bit rusty.. but anyway, those are my thoughts after more coffee and a second read-through..


----------



## winenous

I'd just add that the modal verbs like _want, will, shall, would _and _should_ in English and their Scandinavian equivalents, have rather subtle shades of meanings. I am sure not all English speakers understand all the possible nuances in their own language, which are not set in stone, and often are not that important. I suspect it's the same in the same in the Scandivavian languages. 

As a first approximation the Scandinavian words translate pretty well to and from their obvious English equivalents, but the subtleties and nuances may differ. Beyond using the obvious translations, I think the best that can be done is to find a good a Grammar book (I cannot help with Swedish on that), and to listen to and read native speakers and writers.


----------



## Kelso145

Thanks for this.

I thought I typed skulle vara not bli. Hence confusion.

Anyway, if I'm getting this then saying I intend homework to be a punishment, I should write:

Det (the homework) skulle vara ett straff. 

Does that look right?


----------



## winenous

I believe in Norwegian it could be _skal _or _skulle_, depending on who it saying it, who is doing the homework, and the feeling of the speaker, but I am not sure if any of those possible differences carry through into Swedish.

But if your homework is to learn Swedish, it should be a pleasure; not a punishment


----------



## MattiasNYC

Kelso, I think it would help if you write out a more complete paragraph or conversation. To me it doesn't look like the better option in isolation. Again, you're writing that it is intended to be something which to me implies that it already is that in your mind, it's not really a hypothetical. So I would probably just say in one way or another that it _is or will be_ a punishment:

_Det är ett straff.
Det skall vara ett straff._

I think I'm getting hung up on what's in your head when you're saying it. I mean, suppose instead that you and I are discussing this homework and your kid already did it and complained about it being a bad experience, and I'm wondering what the value was - you might say "Det (the homework) skulle vara ett straff." which I'd translate into "It was supposed to be a punishment".


----------



## Kelso145

MattiasNYC said:


> Kelso, I think it would help if you write out a more complete paragraph or conversation.


Yes that might help. Thanks.

I was originally asking this because I was trying to practice writing a letter so I'll just post the first part here if I may:

_När jag berättade vart jag skulle åka, sa de att jag måste stanna hemma, göra mina läxor först. 
De ville inte att jag skulle göra läxorna för min egen skull. Nej, läxorna skulle vara ett straff._


----------



## winenous

If in English you might say "The homework is supposed to be a punishment", so you are reporting what you suppose is their intention, or they said it was their intention and you are not happy about it, my Norwegian instinct would suggest "ska vara" is the best translation. It's one of those subtleties that doesn't translate to English in a simple-minded way.

Google translate agrees with that tranlsation into Swedish, but unfortunately that is the best authority I can find


----------



## MattiasNYC

I think both "skulle göra" and "skulle vara" is correct with that sample context.


----------



## George VII

MattiasNYC said:


> I think both "skulle göra" and "skulle vara" is correct with that sample context.


Surely you mean "skulle *ut*göra"?



Kelso145 said:


> _De ville inte att jag skulle göra läxorna för min egen skull. Nej, läxorna skulle vara ett straff._


Since your are writing in the past tense, _skulle_ is correct here.

Your earlier sentences in the thread used different tenses. Compare the two examples below and observe that the Swedish equivalent of "want(ed) it to be" needs the verb _skola_ to be conjugated in the correct tense, unlike the English version which just has an infinitive.

Jag *vill* att det *ska vara* ett straff.  = I *want* it *to be* a punishment.
Jag *ville* att det *skulle vara* ett straff. = I *wanted* it *to be* a punishment.


----------



## MattiasNYC

"Utgöra läxor"?????


----------



## winenous

George VII said:


> Since your are writing in the past tense, _skulle_ is correct here.


Or perhaps "skulle varit" if the homework was also in the past?

I was being sloppy with my tenses!

Here is a detailed discussion of the meanings of "ska/skall" in terms of translations to English. 

Now all we need is a similar article on "skulle" and everything will be clear 😕


----------



## Kelso145

Thanks for the responses.


----------

