# Swedish: Would



## 盲人瞎馬

Hello,

I've noticed that swedes often use the word hade to mean "would". I was watching a movie with swedish subtitles when I saw this dialog:

Context: They're in a simulated reality at the top of a building.


> P1: Höjdskräck.
> P1: Jag är inte förvånad.
> P1: Det är inte på riktigt. Vi kan bara hoppa.
> P2: En människa som du *hade hoppat*. De smarta *hade gått *till huset.



Does it mean the same as it would had it used the word skulle?

Thanks.


----------



## MattiasNYC

"skulle ha", yes.


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

MattiasNYC said:


> "skulle ha", yes.



Does "En människa som du hade hoppat."  mean "A person like you would jump" or "would have jumped"?


----------



## MattiasNYC

"would have"

"jump" = "hoppa"
"jumped" = "hoppade/*hoppat*"


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

MattiasNYC said:


> "would have"
> 
> "jump" = "hoppa"
> "jumped" = "hoppade/*hoppat*"



Sorry, I don't quite understand your comment.

En människa som du hade hoppat = A person like you would have jumped
En människa som du skulle hoppa = A person like you would jump

Is this it? But why not say ...skulle ha hoppat?


----------



## AutumnOwl

_Skulle_ is often dropped when we can say the same thing using _hade_ (as it's shorter). In a way you can compare it with the English using "I'd ..." instead of "I would ..." See here about konditionalis in Swedish: http://www.lardigsvenska.com/2011/05/konditionalis.html


----------



## MattiasNYC

Vitalore said:


> Sorry, I don't quite understand your comment.



Sorry, I could maybe have been more clear. I was pointing out that the word "jump" is "hoppa" in Swedish, and "jump*ed*" is "hoppa*t*" (in this example). So just working "backwards" you'd have to use the word "jumped", and then precede that with either "skulle ha" or "hade".



Vitalore said:


> En människa som du hade hoppat = A person like you would have jumped
> En människa som du skulle hoppa = A person like you would jump
> 
> Is this it?



But those are two different propositions in English; "would [_have done _something]" versus "would [_do_ something]". 



Vitalore said:


> But why not say ...skulle ha hoppat?



You could say that, yes.


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

MattiasNYC said:


> But those are two different propositions in English; "would [_have done _something]" versus "would [_do_ something]".



So "...som du hade gjort" means the same as "...som du skulle ha gjort"?

If yes, is this a spoken-language thing?


----------



## MattiasNYC

Vitalore said:


> So "...som du hade gjort" means the same as "...som du skulle ha gjort"?



Yes.



Vitalore said:


> If yes, is this a spoken-language thing?



We see it in writing too.


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

MattiasNYC said:


> We see it in writing too.



But is it colloquial?


----------



## MattiasNYC

I honestly have no impression on whether or not it is formal or colloquial. I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if someone said or wrote it, regardless of who that person was or what the circumstances were.


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

MattiasNYC said:


> I honestly have no impression on whether or not it is formal or colloquial. I wouldn't raise an eyebrow if someone said or wrote it, regardless of who that person was or what the circumstances were.



So it's just a matter of preference? Some might say skulle ha gjort while others hade gjort?


----------



## MattiasNYC

Like AutumnOwl said, "hade gjort" is shorter than "skulle ha gjort", so it's possibly more common.


----------



## Ben Jamin

I am wondering if Swedish is undergoing the same process of changing the conditional sentences as it is happening in Norwegian.

In English you have still two types of conditionals: 
A person like you would have jumped
A person like you would jump.

In older Norwegian texts they would be translated to Norwegian as

Et menneske som deg ville ha hoppet.
Et menneske som deg ville hoppe.  

Now, it has been a long time since I saw any of those two sentences in print or heard them on radio or television.
Nowadays the usual way is to express both types of sentence like this:

*Et menneske som deg hadde hoppet. (*En människa som du hade hoppat)

It looks as if the *two *types of conditionals have converged into *one *in Norwegian (at least among people born after 1970).


----------



## DerFrosch

Ben Jamin said:


> I am wondering if Swedish is undergoing the same process of changing the conditional sentences as it is happening in Norwegian.



Maybe. But it definitely hasn't come as far as in Norwegian, that's for sure.

Because to me, there's no doubt that "hade gjort" is a more colloquial form than "skulle ha gjort". In spoken language it's quite common to leave out "skulle", but I would never write it (expect in informal messages to friends). It looks sloppy and if you want to write well, there's really no need to use it unless space is a factor (which it is in subtitling). 

One reason why it should be avoided is for clarity. While it's true that in most situations it would be obvious that a shortened version of _konditionalis _is used, there's still a risk that it may be (at first sight, at least) interpreted as pluperfect.

But apparently Mattias didn't consider it informal, so it's probably becoming more accepted.


----------

