# Swedish: vilken/ vilket/ vilka / som



## gvergara

Hej:

I read that you can always replace the relative pronoun som with vilen/ vilket/ vilka, but that that's rather formal. My question is: Is this also true of non-defining relative clauses. Whih of these sentences is/are correct?

1) _Defining relative clause_:
_Manen *som *du söker bor inte här,
Manen *vilken *du söker bor inte här_.

2) Non-defining relative clause:
_Min bror Tom, *som *bor i London, är ogift.
Min bror Tom, *vilken *bor i London, är ogift._

Thanks in advance,
Gonzalo


----------



## Tjahzi

Hm. _Som _being a more formal substitute for _vilken_? That's weird.

As for your first example, I'd say the more natural/common way is probably to omit _som_/_vilken _altogether, followed by using _som_, which sounds fine, and last, using _vilken_, which sounds a bit awkwardly formal.

_Mannen du söker bor inte här > Mannen som du söker bor inte här > Mannen vilken du söker bor inte här.

_The second example is a bit different since it contains a subclause. However, here too, even more actually, I'd recommend _som _over _vilken_.The latter version is really awkward.


To sum up, _vilken_ is clearly more formal than _som_. I'll have a closer look at it and see if I can find a context in which I'd prefer _vilken_ (I suspect there might be such a context, but then again, I speak quite formally.)


----------



## gvergara

Guess my English is getting as rotten as my Swedish... I probably did not use the right words. The book said that _vilken/ vilket/ vilka_ will ALWAYS be more formal than *som*, not the other way round


----------



## Muzze

gvergara said:


> Hej:
> 
> I read that you can always replace the relative pronoun som with vilen/ vilket/ vilka, but that that's rather formal. My question is: Is this also true of non-defining relative clauses. Whih of these sentences is/are correct?
> 
> 1) _Defining relative clause_:
> _Manen *som *du söker bor inte här,
> Manen *vilken *du söker bor inte här_.
> 
> 2) Non-defining relative clause:
> _Min bror Tom, *som *bor i London, är ogift.
> Min bror Tom, *vilken *bor i London, är ogift._
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Gonzalo



"Som" is right in both sentences but can be omited in the first sentence. Neither "som" or "vilken" etc. are formal for me.


----------



## Tjahzi

Muzze said:


> "Som" is right in both sentences but can be omited in the first sentence. Neither "som" or "vilken" etc. are formal for me.


So, you are saying _som_ and _vilken_ are equally informal? Interesting, would you please share your age and dialect?  (I'm just being curious.)


----------



## Muzze

Tjahzi said:


> So, you are saying _som_ and _vilken_ are equally informal? Interesting, would you please share your age and dialect?  (I'm just being curious.)



Scanian and in my twenties. 

Neither words are formal to me and one reason is because you for example can`t say them both in some situations.

Han är stor och stark men ändå feg vilket är underligt. 

In the sentence above it would be strange to use "som". But I agree that "vilken" is slightly more formal than "som" when both can be used.


----------



## Dan2

gvergara said:


> 1) _Defining relative clause_:
> _Manen *som *du söker bor inte här,
> Manen *vilken *du söker bor inte här_.
> 
> 2) Non-defining relative clause:
> _Min bror Tom, *som *bor i London, är ogift.
> Min bror Tom, *vilken *bor i London, är ogift._


Note that there are actually _two_ important differences between (1) and (2), and they are independent of each other:

As you say, (1) is what we usually call in English a _restrictive_ relative clause (but "defining" may be better: it _defines_ (in this case) a particular man); while (2) is a _non-restrictive_ relative clause (just adds more information about Tom).

But independent of that, in (1) the relative pronoun ("som" or "vilken") stands as the _object _of the relative clause, while in (2) as _subject_.

So there are 4 possibilities (restr subj, restr obj, non-restr subj, non-restr obj). In English it's only _restrictive-_relative-clause _object _ relative pronouns that can be dropped (and I think the situation is the same in Swedish and Norwegian):
_The man (that) you're looking for ... = __Mannen (som) du söker ..__._
_The man that is looking for you ... = __Mannen som __söker dig ..._

(This English/Scandinavian dropping of the object relative pronoun is not in general allowed in German and the Romance languages.)


----------



## sakvaka

Det var en fråga till. My old grammar book (Pelkonen, Miettinen, 1969) lists these as examples of varying use of the conjunctions. Are they common/understandable in modern language?

_Ring till mig klockan 4, vid vilken tid jag redan brukar vara hemma.
Jag beundrar den skicklighet, med vilken han har lärt sig undvika svårigheterna i sina översättningar.
Det är en sak, angående vilken man kan vara av olika åsikt.
De barn, bland vilka jag växte upp, hade goda hem.

EDIT: _And one more, from 1950.

_Min bror bor i Åbo, vilken stad även jag ofta har besökt._


----------



## Muzze

sakvaka said:


> Det var en fråga till. My old grammar book (Pelkonen, Miettinen, 1969) lists these as examples of varying use of the conjunctions. Are they common/understandable in modern language?
> 
> _Ring till mig klockan 4, vid vilken tid jag redan brukar vara hemma.
> Jag beundrar den skicklighet, med vilken han har lärt sig undvika svårigheterna i sina översättningar.
> Det är en sak, angående vilken man kan vara av olika åsikt.
> De barn, bland vilka jag växte upp, hade goda hem.
> 
> EDIT: _And one more, from 1950.
> 
> _Min bror bor i Åbo, vilken stad även jag ofta har besökt._



For me sentence 3 and 4 directly sound right. Sentence 2 sounds ok but sentence 1 and 5 sound wrong. All sentences are understandable at least in writing. I do not think these kinds of sentences are very common, maybe someone else knows which are correct.


----------



## Tjahzi

sakvaka said:


> Det var en fråga till. My old grammar book (Pelkonen, Miettinen, 1969) lists these as examples of varying use of the conjunctions. Are they common/understandable in modern language?
> 
> _Ring till mig klockan 4, vid vilken tid jag redan brukar vara hemma.
> Jag beundrar den skicklighet, med vilken han har lärt sig undvika svårigheterna i sina översättningar.
> Det är en sak, angående vilken man kan vara av olika åsikt.
> De barn, bland vilka jag växte upp, hade goda hem.
> 
> EDIT: _And one more, from 1950.
> 
> _Min bror bor i Åbo, vilken stad även jag ofta har besökt._



First is just odd. I'd rewrite it, using the most natural way of expressing it, as  _Ring mig klockan 4. Då brukar jag vara hemma._

Second sounds ok, although quite formal.

Third is ok, but overly formal since it sounds better with _som_: _Det är en sak som man kan vara av olika åsikt om. _(Preferably even _som man kan ha olika åsikt(er) om_.)

Fourth is similar to third: _De barn som jag växte upp bland hade goda hem_.

Fifth is too odd and overly complicated. A possible rewriting would be _Min bror bor i Åbo, en stad (som) även jag ofta har besökt._

All in all, I'd just keep the second example intact. The rest should either be rewritten or be better of with _som_.


----------



## Ben Jamin

gvergara said:


> Guess my English is getting as rotten as my Swedish... I probably did not use the right words. The book said that _vilken/ vilket/ vilka_ will ALWAYS be more formal than *som*, not the other way round



No, your question is forrest. It was Tjahzi that misunderstood.


----------



## Tjahzi

Indeed, I misread. My apologies.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Ben Jamin said:


> Sorry for misspelling. I meant:
> No, your question is correct. ....


----------

