# Swedish: måste, skola, böra



## gvergara

Hi

I can't really understand the difference between these verbs, especially between måste and skola. My teacher says that _böra_ is similar to _should_, but that it can sometimes be used to express something similar to _must_ (in the sense of a polite obligation or command), and he also told me that _skola_ is used when you report what a person ordered  somebody else to do Here are some examples 

_Måste:
_Du måste gå hem nu._
_Olle måste sälja bilen._

_ Skola:
_Du ska inte göra så_. (find it similar to _shall_ in this case, am I right?)
Man ska alltid fråga honom två gåanger.

_Böra:
_Du bör gå hem nu._
_Jag borde inte röka så mycket._

Thanks in advance,
Gonzalo


----------



## Tjahzi

Ahh, modality in Swedish is a mess...

Ok, first of all, none of these verbs really have an infinite form, just present, and possibly subjunctive_._

_Måste_ is probably the single word that I dislike the most, all languages included. You can't conjugate it and it virtually works like a particle.

_Jag måste göra det igår. Jag måste göra det nu. Jag måste göra det imorgon._ 

Since I find all these forms, _especially_ the former, to be more or less odd, I replace it altogether with _vara tvungen_. 

_Jag var tvungen att göra det igår. Jag är tvungen att göra det nu. Jag är/blir tvungen att göra det imorgon._

That said, it does indeed translate to _must_, or _be obliged to_.

_Ska _is a slightly different story. Personally, I rarely use it to denote necessity, but rather to distinguish _controlled _and _uncontrolled_ future (which, however, sometimes borders to necessity/imperative commands). 
As you might be aware of, _ska _and _komma att_ are used to indicate future actions. However, they are not at all interchangeable. Whereas _komma att_ is used to denote that something _will_ happen without intervention or possibly influence, such as in _det kommer att regna _or _det kommer att bli en spännande match_, _ska _is used to denote that there is some kind of intention behind the action or that the it's somehow controlled. As such, the phrase _Det skall vara klart på måndag!_ can only be interpreted as an imperative, (whose most natural reply, ironically, would be _Det kommer vara klart på måndag!_). Similarly, one cannot really say _Det ska regna_ since rain is per definition uncontrollable (although this could be argued). 

However, I find those examples a bit unnatural and would prefer to rephrase them either with a pure imperative, _Gör inte så!_ or with _bör_, _Man bör alltid fråga honom två gånger_.

Which then leads us to the last form_ bör/borde_. It is indeed used as a "lighter" version of _måste_, corresponding to _should_ or _ought to_. 
Do note that while _bör_ is present_, borde_ is past, and hence also conditional/subjunctive_. _As such, it's technically possible to distinguish _Du bör inte röka _and _Du borde inte röka_, but since _bör_ more or less indicated subjunctive by default, this is indeed just in theory. However, as has been described in the thread about subjunctive, the present can also be used to indicate future.

Hm, since you didn't really specify your question, I hope this random jabbering brought you a little closer to enlightenment. However, if not, please feel free to ask again/specify.


----------



## cocuyo

These examples are verbs that do not have counterparts in Spanish, which I think is the ground for your confusion. Tjahzi explained it rather well. As Swedish does not have any future tense, it is always expressed either composing the active verb with "ska" or "kommer att", or otherwise only by present tense. "Ska" then denotes that there is an intention, while "kommer att" is affirmative. 

"Bör", as the English "ought to" just has to be learned as a modus that is deficient in Spanish. In Spanish it is expressed as "hay que" or "debe", but none of those bears the same meaning. 

The simplest of them is "måste", which has an exact counterpart in Spanish, "tener que". Only in English is there a false friend when it is negated, as in English "must not" means "no puede" or "no se permite" rather than "no tiene que", while "måste inte" in Swedish and similar expressions in other Germanic languages except English denotes that the action is not obliged.


----------



## Ben Jamin

cocuyo said:


> Only in English is there a false friend when it is negated, as in English "must not" means "no puede" or "no se permite" rather than "no tiene que", while "måste inte" in Swedish and similar expressions in other Germanic languages except English denotes that the action is not obliged.


 In Norwegian 'må ikke' means exactly the same as 'must not' in English: a prohibition: "du må ikke gjøre det!", while lack of obligation is expressed with "du behøver ikke".


----------



## ad31677

cocuyo said:


> The simplest of them is "måste", which has an exact counterpart in Spanish, "tener que". Only in English is there a false friend when it is negated, as in English "must not" means "no puede" or "no se permite" rather than "no tiene que", while "måste inte" in Swedish and similar expressions in other Germanic languages except English denotes that the action is not obliged.



Curiously, Google translate (which, I know, has its limitations), insists on translating "du måste inte ..." as "you must not ..." and not "you don't have to ...", which is what I thought it meant.  That confuses me regularly.  Only the same Swedish construction that Ben Jamin quotes in Norwegian generates the "you don't have to ...".

Regards,
Aidan


----------



## kilton

So how does English's "must not" translate into Swedish?


----------



## cocuyo

kilton said:


> So how does English's "must not" translate into Swedish?



"Must not" is "får inte" in Swedish.


----------



## Ben Jamin

ad31677 said:


> Curiously, Google translate (which, I know, has its limitations), insists on translating "du måste inte ..." as "you must not ..." and not "you don't have to ...", which is what I thought it meant. That confuses me regularly. Only the same Swedish construction that Ben Jamin quotes in Norwegian generates the "you don't have to ...".
> 
> Regards,
> Aidan


It shows how deficient Google Translator is. Google has also cut off all the possibilities of giving a feedback on wrong translation.


----------



## cocuyo

It might be noted that "må" in Norwegian is not the same word, does not have exact the same connotation as "måste" in Swedish. There is also in Swedish a verb "må" (there are two meanings of "må", two different homonymous verbs) that is the counterpart of Norwegian "må", which etymologically corresponds to English "may", which in turn in some contexts can be translated with the verb "få" en Swedish and "må" in Norwegian.


----------

