# Swedish: ...att hon ska tala svenska



## garydpoole

Hejsan !

I've recently encountered some phrases where the subject is stating a want or desire that someone or something does something:

_Jag vill att hon ska tala svenska._

I'm just curious as to why there is a need for _ska _before the verb that the subject wants doing. In other words, is it not possible just so say:

_Jag vill att hon talar svenska._

Hälsningar

Gary


----------



## Swedish Anna

Hejsan! There is a _ska_ there  because this refers to the future, but as you might have noticed, people often use the present tense to talk about the future. _Jag ringer på fredag, så ses vi på lördag, jag kommer i bilen och vi tar oss en tur..._ as the song goes. (Sven Ingvars is not my cuppa, but it's a good illustration of this phenomenon)
Så both _Jag vill att hon ska tala svenska _och_ Jag vill att hon talar svenska _are correct.


----------



## Ben Jamin

garydpoole said:


> Hejsan !
> 
> I've recently encountered some phrases where the subject is stating a want or desire that someone or something does something:
> 
> _Jag vill att hon ska tala svenska._
> 
> I'm just curious as to why there is a need for _ska _before the verb that the subject wants doing. In other words, is it not possible just so say:
> 
> _Jag vill att hon talar svenska._
> 
> Hälsningar
> 
> Gary


In my understanding the construction with "vil at ... ska ..." is a substitute for the subjunctive mood, which doesn't exist in the Scandinavian languages any longer.


----------



## jonquiliser

Using the same structure, I wonder if there's not an ever so slight difference in meaning. I would say:
_Jag vill att du ska gå till butiken_ (I want you to go to the shop – but I don't know whether you will, I'm just throwing it out there)
_Jag vill att du går till butiken  _(more firmly a request for you to go to the shop)

In the example above:
_Jag vill att hon ska tala svenska _(for example, I want my daughter to speak Swedish, so I speak Swedish with her – as a general remark)
_Jag vill att hon talar svenska _(for example my langage student who switches to English all the time and I demand her to keep to Swedish)

Or am I reading too much into it?


----------



## garydpoole

Thanks for the replies !



Swedish Anna said:


> Så both _Jag vill att hon ska tala svenska _och_ Jag vill att hon talar svenska _are correct.



Is there a preference to which one is used the most ?



Ben Jamin said:


> In my understanding the construction with "vil at ... ska ..." is a substitute for the subjunctive mood, which doesn't exist in the Scandinavian languages any longer.



Ah, that would make a lot of sense, as the statement itself is expressing a wish or preference.

Having been studying French for the last three years, I'm more than aware of the subjunctive mood and must say that I'm glad to hear that it no longer exists in Swedish 

However and notwithstanding, I get the feeling that, similar to the way in which _que _in French forms part of a subjunctive trigger, _att...ska _could be considered the same if the subjunctive mood did exist in Swedish ?

Gary


----------



## Brannoc

Swedish Anna said:


> _ jag kommer i bilen och vi tar oss en tur..._ as the song goes.


Interesting as I would have thought...."tar vi oss en tur...." or have I got it mixed up with something else ?


----------



## myšlenka

jonquiliser said:


> Using the same structure, I wonder if there's not an ever so slight difference in meaning. [...]
> In the example above:
> _Jag vill att hon ska tala svenska _(for example, I want my daughter to speak Swedish, so I speak Swedish with her – as a general remark)
> _Jag vill att hon talar svenska _(for example my langage student who switches to English all the time and I demand her to keep to Swedish)
> Or am I reading too much into it?





garydpoole said:


> Is there a preference to which one is used the most ?


I won't exclude that some speakers might distinguish these two in this way, but I doubt that is the case given that the alleged meaning difference cannot be applied to the past tense. I don't speak Swedish (so Swedish speakers will have to correct me), but my guess is that the following sentence is ungrammatical:

*_Jag ville at han gick_.

So, in order to preserve paradigm uniformity, it is perhaps best to use the _ska_-construction also for the present tense.


garydpoole said:


> However and notwithstanding, I get the feeling that, similar to the way in which _que _in French forms part of a subjunctive trigger, _att...ska _could be considered the same if the subjunctive mood did exist in Swedish ?


The subjunctive in mainland Scandinavian languages is expressed through the indicative or through auxiliaries (_måste, skulle) _so there is no uniform way to express it.


Brannoc said:


> Interesting as I would have thought...."tar vi oss en tur...." or have I got it mixed up with something else ?


You are trying to apply the V2 rule counting the word _och_ as a constituent, whereas it should be invisible to the overall syntactic structure:
_[Jag kommer i bilen] och [vi tar oss en tur]._


----------



## Brannoc

_You are trying to apply the V2 rule counting the word och as a constituent, whereas it should be invisible to the overall syntactic structure:
[Jag kommer i bilen] och [vi tar oss en tur].
_
Thanks, are there any parallels to this in English ?


----------



## myšlenka

Brannoc said:


> Thanks, are there any parallels to this in English ?


I am not sure what you are asking for but questions concerning the syntactic structure of Swedish are outside the scope of this thread. I am sure there are other threads about it already.


----------



## jonquiliser

myšlenka said:


> I won't exclude that some speakers might distinguish these two in this way, but I doubt that is the case given that the alleged meaning difference cannot be applied to the past tense. I don't speak Swedish (so Swedish speakers will have to correct me), but my guess is that the following sentence is ungrammatical:
> 
> *_Jag ville at han gick_.
> 
> So, in order to preserve paradigm uniformity, it is perhaps best to use the _ska_-construction also for the present tense_._



Why would you need to maintain paradigm uniformity? I don't think the rules are hard and fast, and of my examples above I can find others that vary – but I would surely say there are differences in meaning that cannot be ignored. And while we probably wouldn't say, as you correctly point out, *_jag ville att han gick_ but rather _jag ville att han skulle gå_, you *can *use both versions in the present with slightly different meanings.

In response to garydpool about whether there's a preference, I'd say _jag vill att hon talar_ is ever so slightly more imperative whereas _jag vill att hon ska_ is more of an expression of a wish. To my ear, at least.


----------



## myšlenka

jonquiliser said:


> Why would you need to maintain paradigm uniformity? I don't think the rules are hard and fast, and of my examples above I can find others that vary – but I would surely say there are differences in meaning that cannot be ignored. And while we probably wouldn't say, as you correctly point out, *_jag ville att han gick_ but rather _jag ville att han skulle gå_, you *can *use both versions in the present with slightly different meanings.
> 
> In response to garydpool about whether there's a preference, I'd say _jag vill att hon talar_ is ever so slightly more imperative whereas _jag vill att hon ska_ is more of an expression of a wish. To my ear, at least.


The use of the simple present in this construction is probably due to the subjunctive auxiliary falling out of use. Speakers of Swedish will probably disagree about the grammaticality of the former. As for the paradigm uniformity, it is a lot easier to learn one simple template (_att villa att X ska/skulle_) than learning two separate ones for past and present. Besides, you'd have to explain why the alleged meaning difference cannot be expressed in the past tense. I won't exclude it, but unless you can find other examples of meanings that can only be expressed in one tense, I find it highly unlikely.


----------

