# Swedish - Problems with sentence construction.



## Hjoi

Jag kommer att gå till staden för att prata med mina kompisar i restaurangen som du ville för att gå till igår.


I will go to the city to talk with my friends in the restaurant that you wanted to go to yesterday. 


Why after - för - does the verb take the infinite form - att gå - and not just - gå -


After som... Should the verb come second place - som ville du -


Does the verb come second place after words like och, men, därför att - conjunctions.


Also, in English it is common to say...


Having spoken with my friend, we have decided not to go to the restaurant.


In Swedish, how would you express the first part of this sentence?


Ha talat med min kompisar, har vi beslutat för inte att gå till restaurangen.

Tack.


----------



## Hjoi

Also, 

Ha talat med mina kompisar, har vi beslutat för inte att gå till restaurangen.

Is it possible to change the last part of the sentence to...

Ha talat med mina kompisar, har vi beslutat för inte att gå till restaurangen OCH att prata med dina föräldrar om ditt nytt hus. 

Or should it read...

Ha talat med mina kompisar, har vi beslutat för inte att gå till restaurangen FÖR att prata med dina föräldrar om ditt nytt hus. 

tack.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Hjoi said:


> I will go to the city to talk with my friends in the restaurant that you wanted to go to yesterday.
> 
> 
> Why after - för - does the verb take the infinite form - att gå - and not just - gå -
> 
> 
> *After som... Should the verb come second place - som ville du -*
> 
> 
> *Does the verb come second place after words like och, men, därför att - conjunctions.*


*


*It's "som du ville", not "som ville du".



Hjoi said:


> Also, in English it is common to say...
> 
> 
> Having spoken with my friend, we have decided not to go to the restaurant.
> 
> 
> In Swedish, how would you express the first part of this sentence?
> 
> 
> Ha talat med min kompisar, har vi beslutat för inte att gå till restaurangen.
> 
> Tack.



I don't think we say it 'that way' in Swedish. If you look at the English phrase as basically omitting "After" at the beginning of it, you'll be able to translate it:

"*After having* spoken with my friend,"
"*Efter att ha* pratat med min kompis,"

"har vi beslutat för inte att gå till restaurangen"

should be

"har vi beslutat *oss *för att *inte *gå till restaurangen"


----------



## MattiasNYC

Hjoi said:


> Is it possible to change the last part of the sentence to...
> 
> Ha talat med mina kompisar, har vi beslutat för inte att gå till restaurangen OCH att prata med dina föräldrar om ditt nytt hus.
> 
> Or should it read...
> 
> Ha talat med mina kompisar, har vi beslutat för inte att gå till restaurangen FÖR att prata med dina föräldrar om ditt nytt hus.
> 
> tack.



See the previous post for the first part of the sentence. For the second I guess one question would be the same in English: Would you actually use "and" or "to"? 

Having said that, there is a difference between the two options you provided;

"OCH att prata" should read "och prata", no "att", whereas the second is correct grammatically.


----------



## Hjoi

MattiasNYC said:


> [/B]It's "som du ville", not "som ville du".
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we say it 'that way' in Swedish. If you look at the English phrase as basically omitting "After" at the beginning of it, you'll be able to translate it:
> 
> "*After having* spoken with my friend,"
> "*Efter att ha* pratat med min kompis,"
> 
> "har vi beslutat för inte att gå till restaurangen"
> 
> should be
> 
> "har vi beslutat *oss *för att *inte *gå till restaurangen"



This is very helpful. 

...har vi beslutat *oss *för att *inte *gå till restaurangen.

...Have we decided *us* to not go to the restaurant.

What is the purpose of the use of 'us' in this sentence? I am reminded of this construction: Vi har på oss en klänning. We have on us a dress. Does the same concept apply here? It seems very... Figurative I guess. 

Going back to the sentence:

*Efter att ha* pratat med min kompis, har vi beslutat *oss *för att *inte *gå till restaurangen.

Now that I know the fundamental parts of this sentence, is it now possible to use other verbs instead?

Efter att ha skrivit den här boken, hade han ätit *sig* fisken på bordet.


----------



## Hjoi

_barnen försökte att gömma bollen

_The children tried to hide the ball.

Jag vill gå till staden för att prata med min kompis.

Why does för occur in the second sentence but not the first sentence?


----------



## MattiasNYC

Hjoi said:


> This is very helpful.
> 
> ...har vi beslutat *oss *för att *inte *gå till restaurangen.
> 
> ...Have we decided *us* to not go to the restaurant.
> 
> What is the purpose of the use of 'us' in this sentence?



Beats me  Honestly, I don't know, just know that's how it is.



Hjoi said:


> I am reminded of this construction: Vi har på oss en klänning. We have on us a dress. Does the same concept apply here? It seems very... Figurative I guess.



Well, I'd say the sentence above would be pretty unusual, but it seems accurate.



Hjoi said:


> Going back to the sentence:
> 
> *Efter att ha* pratat med min kompis, har vi beslutat *oss *för att *inte *gå till restaurangen.
> 
> Now that I know the fundamental parts of this sentence, is it now possible to use other verbs instead?
> 
> Efter att ha skrivit den här boken, hade han ätit *sig* fisken på bordet.



   I see how it's tempting and seemingly logical to draw that conclusion, but I think it would be a bit unusual a way to express yourself. Old-fashioned perhaps. You eat something, and that's it. So "hade han ätit  fisken" suffices. Unfortunately I can't explain this particularly well, but hopefully someone else can chime in. It gets weirder though:

Jag åt fisken - I ate the fish
Jag åt mig full - I ate myself full (or probably better: I ate until full)


----------



## Hjoi

MattiasNYC said:


> Beats me  Honestly, I don't know, just know that's how it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'd say the sentence above would be pretty unusual, but it seems accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> I see how it's tempting and seemingly logical to draw that conclusion, but I think it would be a bit unusual a way to express yourself. Old-fashioned perhaps. You eat something, and that's it. So "hade han ätit  fisken" suffices. Unfortunately I can't explain this particularly well, but hopefully someone else can chime in. It gets weirder though:
> 
> Jag åt fisken - I ate the fish
> Jag åt mig full - I ate myself full (or probably better: I ate until full)



As for the use of för, it would make sense in my mind if för translates into English as 'in order to' as opposed to 'to'.


----------



## merryweather

Hjoi said:


> This is very helpful.
> 
> ...har vi beslutat *oss *för att *inte *gå till restaurangen.
> 
> ...Have we decided *us* to not go to the restaurant.
> 
> What is the purpose of the use of 'us' in this sentence? I am reminded of this construction: Vi har på oss en klänning. We have on us a dress. Does the same concept apply here? It seems very... Figurative I guess.
> 
> Going back to the sentence:
> 
> *Efter att ha* pratat med min kompis, har vi beslutat *oss *för att *inte *gå till restaurangen.
> 
> Now that I know the fundamental parts of this sentence, is it now possible to use other verbs instead?
> 
> Efter att ha skrivit den här boken, hade han ätit *sig* fisken på bordet.



Swedish is a Germanic language and like German, it has lots of verbs which are reflexive, i.e. you have to add all these words like "mig" and "oss" etc, which we wouldn't use in English.

Germans "relax themselves" and do all sorts of things "to themselves" that we wouldn't bother emphasising that way. No particular reason for it, it just IS that way.

But, there is some logic to the usage, so saying, "jag ätit mig" would be like saying "I ate myself".

Sometimes you have to just accept that the languages are the way they are. One's own first language isn't a benchmark or a yardstick against which other languages should be measured, although I agree that comparisons can be helpful.

Secondly, when learning a language, it often helps to learn the verbs and nouns in collocations. Some verbs have "på" attached to them, whereas others don't, and so on. It isn't always possible to generalize from one particular expression onto the entire language, and it is more useful to just say, "OK, that verb (adjective, noun etc) works like that. I'll file that away and see if I can notice some other similar patterns."

In English, for example, verbs with similar meanings attract the same prepositions, in many cases, so if you know that "go" often "attracts" the preposition "to" to it (i.e. I go to the cinema most weekends), then you can surmise that run, walk, and other verbs of movement might also behave in the same way.

My Swedish is not good enough yet to give you examples in Swedish, but I would bet my last öre on there being similar patterns in Swedish, too.

Nice to see you back, by the way, hjoi! I thought we might have lost you after cagey deleted your thread.


----------



## Hjoi

merryweather said:


> Swedish is a Germanic language and like German, it has lots of verbs which are reflexive, i.e. you have to add all these words like "mig" and "oss" etc, which we wouldn't use in English.
> 
> Germans "relax themselves" and do all sorts of things "to themselves" that we wouldn't bother emphasising that way. No particular reason for it, it just IS that way.
> 
> But, there is some logic to the usage, so saying, "jag ätit mig" would be like saying "I ate myself".
> 
> Sometimes you have to just accept that the languages are the way they are. One's own first language isn't a benchmark or a yardstick against which other languages should be measured, although I agree that comparisons can be helpful.
> 
> Secondly, when learning a language, it often helps to learn the verbs and nouns in collocations. Some verbs have "på" attached to them, whereas others don't, and so on. It isn't always possible to generalize from one particular expression onto the entire language, and it is more useful to just say, "OK, that verb (adjective, noun etc) works like that. I'll file that away and see if I can notice some other similar patterns."
> 
> In English, for example, verbs with similar meanings attract the same prepositions, in many cases, so if you know that "go" often "attracts" the preposition "to" to it (i.e. I go to the cinema most weekends), then you can surmise that run, walk, and other verbs of movement might also behave in the same way.
> 
> My Swedish is not good enough yet to give you examples in Swedish, but I would bet my last öre on there being similar patterns in Swedish, too.
> 
> Nice to see you back, by the way, hjoi! I thought we might have lost you after cagey deleted your thread.



Hello merryweather. Thank you for reminding me of the pitfalls that occur when translating literally from English to Swedish. That being said, you're right in that comparisons between both languages can help learn both languages too. My English is improving as I discover more of the grammatical rules underpinning both languages. I have been watching English movies with Swedish subtitles on this website:

http://dreamfilmhd.org/

I suggest you too do the same as a means to improve your Swedish!

Tack!


----------



## MattiasNYC

Hjoi,

I'd also recommend you switch to Swedish movies with English subtitles as soon as possible, since you'll then learn how the language is adapted in speech and learn sounds etc.


----------



## AutumnOwl

Hjoi said:


> ...har vi beslutat *oss *för att *inte *gå till restaurangen.
> 
> ...Have we decided *us* to not go to the restaurant.
> 
> What is the purpose of the use of 'us' in this sentence?


Think of this as:
... have we decided that we won't go to the restaurant.

It can also be said as:
... hade vi beslutat att inte gå till restaurangen.
... have we decided not to go to the restaurant.

See: http://en.bab.la/dictionary/swedish-english/beslutat-att-inte


Hjoi said:


> As for the use of för, it would make sense in my  mind if för translates into English as 'in order to' as opposed to  'to'.


Correct. 

When using "bestämma/besluta ... för att (göra något) you need to use a pronoun in Swedish, as it's a decision someone makes.


Hjoi said:


> Efter att ha skrivit den här boken, hade han ätit *sig* fisken på bordet.


No, but you can say:
... hade han ätit sig mätt på fisken på bordet.


----------



## cocuyo

Hjoi said:


> Jag kommer att gå till staden för att prata med mina kompisar i restaurangen som du ville för att gå till igår.


  Gå, in Swedish, literally is to walk. It is also used in a few sentences with a preposition as a particle verb, meaning other things, but essentially, it has the literal meaning walk.      





Hjoi said:


> I will go to the city to talk with my friends in the restaurant that you wanted to go to yesterday.    Why after - för - does the verb take the infinite form - att gå - and not just - gå -


   So you would not "gå" to the city, unless you would really walk all the way. Go mostly is "åka", which is what you would probably do when going downtown.     





Hjoi said:


> After som... Should the verb come second place - som ville du -


  No, the independent clause has the subject before the predicate.      





Hjoi said:


> Does the verb come second place after words like och, men, därför att - conjunctions.


  No as above.     





Hjoi said:


> Also, in English it is common to say...   Having spoken with my friend, we have decided not to go to the restaurant.   In Swedish, how would you express the first part of this sentence?


   Efter att ha talat med min kompis, har vi bestämt oss för att inte gå till restaurangen.      





Hjoi said:


> Ha talat med min kompisar, har vi beslutat för inte att gå till restaurangen.


  We cannot start a sentence with infinitive, it is; "Efter att ha talat med mina kompisar" or "Sedan jag har talat med mina kompisar". The negation "inte" must be placed after "att" or rather directly before the verb. It is either "beslutat att inte" or "bestämt oss för att inte".


----------



## merryweather

Hjoi said:


> Hello merryweather. Thank you for reminding me of the pitfalls that occur when translating literally from English to Swedish. That being said, you're right in that comparisons between both languages can help learn both languages too. My English is improving as I discover more of the grammatical rules underpinning both languages. I have been watching English movies with Swedish subtitles on this website:
> 
> http://dreamfilmhd.org/
> 
> 
> I suggest you too do the same as a means to improve your Swedish!
> 
> Tack!



I am already following MattiasNYC's advice and watch Swedish things with English subtitles for the precise reasons he mentions - to hear how the spoken version of the language sounds in comparison to the written version.

I can recommend "The Bridge" (there's Danish in that, too, but with the subtitles, it isn't a problem). Or maybe you saw that on British TV already? And the Millennium Trilogy in the original Swedish is also good.

You can also watch archived TV programmes on tv4 dot se, I think. If you find it, then click on "text" and you'll get the sound with the Swedish text underneath. That is also really helpful so that you can follow a little better.

And I know what you mean about learning about your own language! I have been teaching English here in Germany (I am from the UK originally) for 25 years, but when I first started teaching it, I had to look up the grammar rules because I had never learnt them in the UK as a schoolkid. And when I started learning, I was glad that I had done German and French as "A" levels and then a degree in German because at least I knew the grammatical terms via other languages!

But I was most flummoxed initially because I soon found out that there were things in English which didn't even exist in German or French, such as the progressive or continuous forms (I am going, I was going etc).

Do you know the site "memrise dot com", by any chance, hjoi?

That has been really useful for me to learn some basic vocab and individual words. Now, though, after learning Swedish for the past year, mostly using memrise, I am finding that this is a little inadequate, because so much of learning languages is about acquiring multi-word expressions and these just don't get covered in language-learning tools that focus on individual words.

I'm glad to see that you are still here, though, despite having another thread removed by cagey...

And keep asking your questions, please, you get some really good contributions and answers (well, my own notwithstanding, of course, but the Swedish contributors always have some helpful tips and ideas)!


----------



## cocuyo

MattiasNYC said:


> Beats me  Jag åt mig full - I ate myself full (or probably better: I ate until full)



As a matter of fact you could do that, eat yourself drunk. It is not uncommon that elks do this when apples have fermented naturally, but it is uncommon for humans to do so. Mostly they get drunk by boozing. 

So in Swedish, regarding the condition _"full"_ of a person is drunk, intoxicated, pissed. 

So the sentence _"jag drack mig full"_ makes more sense. 

Eating oneself full is _"äta sig mätt"_.


----------



## merryweather

@cocuyo:

Thanks for the extra information about drinking vocabulary!

So how would you say, "I don't want any more, thanks, I'm full."

What about this possibility?

"Nej, tack, jag vill inte ha mer, jag har ätit mig redan mätt."

Tack för hjälpen!


----------



## merryweather

@hjoi:

www dot svtplay dot se

is great!

I am just listening to a weather forecast


----------



## cocuyo

merryweather said:


> So how would you say, "I don't want any more, thanks, I'm full."
> 
> What about this possibility?
> 
> "Nej, tack, jag vill inte ha mer, jag har ätit mig redan mätt."



The adverb, _redan_, must be placed before the verb in this case. If moved to the right position the sentence becomes grammatically correct, but awkward. 

A more colloquial way of saying it would be: _Nej tack, jag är [redan] mätt. _It goes without saying that to become full one would eat.


----------



## merryweather

cocuyo said:


> The adverb, _redan_, must be placed before the verb in this case. If moved to the right position the sentence becomes grammatically correct, but awkward.
> 
> A more colloquial way of saying it would be: _Nej tack, jag är [redan] mätt. _It goes without saying that to become full one would eat.



Nice comment! In German, people tend to talk about "drinking" tea, coffee, etc and "eating" food etc. I have to tell the Germans I teach that we just say, "to have a coffee" or "to have a steak" or whatever, because - in English at least - it goes without saying that you EAT steaks and DRINK coffee 

I'm glad that Swedish is pragmatic in that way, too!

I was just testing my Swedish to find out what was possible. I am only about A1 - A2 level as far as writing and speaking is concerned, so my knowledge of everyday Swedish is pretty limited.

Thanks for giving me the colloquial version. This is what language learners who try to learn a language outside the country often miss out on.


----------



## AutumnOwl

merryweather said:


> So how would you say, "I don't want any more, thanks, I'm full."


You can also say _"Jag är nöjd tack"_ (Thanks, I'm satisfied).


----------



## merryweather

AutumnOwl said:


> You can also say _"Jag är nöjd tack"_ (Thanks, I'm satisfied).



Thanks, Autumn Owl!

I like the idea of being "nöjd"


----------

