# Swedish: "att ta betalt" = "to charge" explanation



## applefarm

As i understand:
 "att ta betalt" = "to charge".
The word "betalt" is not a noun, so how can the expression be so weird as "att ta [adjective]"?
Only passive voice allows to make similar construction for verbs vara/bli like "att bli [adjective/participle]" or "är [adjective/participle]", but other verbs like "att ta" should not allow such construction.

Can you explain how the adjective "betalt" fits there?


----------



## AutumnOwl

Betalt is not an adjective, it's a verb: _betala, betalade, betalt_


----------



## applefarm

AutumnOwl said:


> Betalt is not an adjective, it's a verb: _betala, betalade, betalt_



Thx for correction.
Still the grammar looks weird in that case:

"att ta [verb]" 

Because "ta" is not a modal verb, and i don't see help verbs har/hade infront of _betalt.

_Weird still, can you explain why the phrase is such?


----------



## AutumnOwl

Think of _"att ta betalt"_ as to take/ask for payment instead of "to charge" (in Finnish _"ottaa maksun_", there is perhaps something similar in Estonian).


----------



## applefarm

I still don't understand.
Why it is not as
"_"att ta betalning_" = "att infitive noun" ?
The "betalt" should require har/hade infront or is past participle and those should not follow simple verb like "ta".
Grammatically the construction is very weird.

Det är den enda myndigheten som inte tar *betalt* för sin verksamhet.


 This is the only authority that charges no fees for its activities.

Can you give another example in the language which is similar to "tar *betalt*" so that 2 verbs are together?


----------



## AutumnOwl

applefarm said:


> Det är den enda myndigheten som inte tar *betalt* för sin verksamhet.
> 
> 
> This is the only authority that charges no fees for its activities.


Don't think of "att ta betalt" as to charge, think of it instead as "take/ask for payment", which is a more correct translation of the Swedish phrase into English.
This is the only authority that doesn't ask for a payment/fee for its activities.


----------



## applefarm

AutumnOwl said:


> Don't think of "att ta betalt" as to charge, think of it instead as "take/ask for payment", which is a more correct translation of the Swedish phrase into English.
> This is the only authority that doesn't ask for a payment/fee for its activities.



Thanks for answering.
I understand the translation but don't understand the grammar.
Word "Betalt" should require prefix "har/hade", but i don't see such prefix in the phrase, therefore i don't understand how such construction can be legit.


----------



## MattiasNYC

I think the problem may be that you keep separating "ta" and "betalt". 

Let's say you're instead talking about taking something out of something else; "ta ut". Perhaps you're asking if I have taken out the pie (out of the oven): "Har du tagit ut pajen?" (Have you taken out the pie?) That's when you encounter the "har" you're missing. So therefore:

"Har du tagit betalt?"


----------



## Tjahzi

I'm with applefarm here, something's up with this construction. Although, the easy way out would be to just label it a set phrase meaning _to charge_ and move on, but it's an interesting problem. Indeed, _betalt_ might as well be interpreted as an adjective as a verb, but obviously none of them fits very well and as such I did some digging around to see if there was any etymological explanation to be found. While the results were somewhat inconclusive, it seems that the form stems from the phrase _få något väl betalt/få bra betalt för något_ from which the form _betalt_ has been kept even after the verb _få _was replaced by _ta_. Alternatively, it could come directly from phrases like _ta väl betalt för sig_, but this is just speculation and there are other plausible explanations as well. 

Anyhow, the origin of _betalt_ in _att ta betalt_ is most certainly an adjective or even noun rather than a participle. However, in today's language I'd just reduce it to a "verb particle".


----------



## applefarm

Tjahzi said:


> I'm with applefarm here, something's up with this construction. Although, the easy way out would be to just label it a set phrase meaning _to charge_ and move on, but it's an interesting problem. Indeed, _betalt_ might as well be interpreted as an adjective as a verb, but obviously none of them fits very well and as such I did some digging around to see if there was any etymological explanation to be found. While the results were somewhat inconclusive, it seems that the form stems from the phrase _få något väl betalt/få bra betalt för något_ from which the form _betalt_ has been kept even after the verb _få _was replaced by _ta_. Alternatively, it could come directly from phrases like _ta väl betalt för sig_, but this is just speculation and there are other plausible explanations as well.
> 
> Anyhow, the origin of _betalt_ in _att ta betalt_ is most certainly an adjective or even noun rather than a participle. However, in today's language I'd just reduce it to a "verb particle".



Thanks. Yes seems like it is a kind of participle with weird construction. And seems there is no other such weird construction examples in the Swedish language.


----------



## applefarm

Can you translate those 2 below and describe their difference:

att ta betalt 
att f*å betalt*

Thanks.


----------



## MattiasNYC

"to charge" someone.
"to get paid" by someone.


----------



## applefarm

1. What is exact difference between those 2 (charge versus get payed)?
Both termins results the same thing, that person A gets B's money. So where is the nuance between those 2?

2. Can you give some another example of swedish languahe, where similiar gramamtical construction is used like we have in this topic here?
Something like:
at ge haft
or smth.
Does the language have such similiar constructions like "att ta betalt"?


----------



## MattiasNYC

applefarm said:


> 1. What is exact difference between those 2 (charge versus get payed)?
> Both termins results the same thing, that person A gets B's money. So where is the nuance between those 2?



Right, it's not the result that is important, but the action.

I work as an independent engineer, and therefore I do not get paid a salary. When someone calls me for a job and I accept, I do the job and I then _charge them_ a fee for my services. When they pay, obviously I _get paid_ for my services by them.

Now suppose I think I am doing someone a favor, perhaps as part of a charity event. I provide a service and leave. Then a week later there is a check with payment in the mail. I _got paid_ even though I didn't _charge them_ any thing. Jag tog inte betalt för mina tjänster, men de betalade ändå.



applefarm said:


> 2. Can you give some another example of swedish languahe, where similiar gramamtical construction is used like we have in this topic here?
> Something like:
> at ge haft
> or smth.
> Does the language have such similiar constructions like "att ta betalt"?



I am not sure I understand the above. Did you mean something like "att *ge* betalt"? That wouldn't work.


----------



## applefarm

MattiasNYC said:


> Right, it's not the result that is important, but the action.
> Jag tog inte betalt för mina tjänster, men de betalade ändå.


Ok, i understand then. You could even say so then:
Jag tog inte betalt för mina tjänster, men jag fick betalt ändå.
("I didn't ask money, but they gave anyway")



MattiasNYC said:


> Right, it's not the result that is important, but the action.
> I am not sure I understand the above. Did you mean something like "att *ge* betalt"? That wouldn't work.


2. If 
"att *ge* betalt" 
doesn't work, then which other example would work which has grammatically the same pattern as phrase "att ta/få betalt"?

The betalt is not an adverb and not a substantive, it's a gramamtically rare construction in that saying. Is there any other such saying that has the same patter as those 2 which were mentioned i nthis topic?
Maybe some kind of "att börja blablalt" exist for example?


----------

