# Swedish: tycker illa/tycker om



## anekem

Hello,
I'm trying to learn Swedish by myself, and there are some douts that come up continously... 

At the moment, I've got those:

1. Is there any difference between the two sentences:

Jag tycker illa om honom.
Jag tycker inte om honom.

Acording to what I've read till now, the first one means: "I dislike him", while the second one means: "I don't like him." Am I wrong?

2. What's the most common use of the word DÅ? There are so many examples in the english-swedish ordbok that I use, that I'm a bit confused...

3. How do you translate MUST in swedish? I've got these two phrases:

Du FÅR vänta en timme - You MUST wait an hour.
Jag MÅSTE gå till posten snart. - I MUST go to the postoffice soon.

Is there any difference between these two "MUSTs" ?

It would be great if sm released me from the douts...
Thanks!


----------



## Ben Jamin

In Swedish "jag tycker ... om" means generically "I have an opinion on/about  ...". So "jag tycker illa om honom" means literally "I have a bad opinion about him", but "jag tycker om ..." is an idiomatic expression meaning "I like ...", ""jag tycker inte om ..." means "I don't like ...".


----------



## MattiasNYC

I agree. To me "tycker illa om honom" is a much stronger statement, and one that can't be confused with other meanings. The other, "tycker inte om honom", _could_ be a bit 'softer' I think. I think for example that we can use "tycker du om honom?" in a softer more 'romantic' sense, and the reply "no" doesn't mean that you literally _dislike_ the person, only that you don't have romantic feelings for the person. It might be a way of expressing it that is either regional or generational though.

As for "must", I feel similarly in that "måste" is a bit stronger. To me, that implies a restriction or enforcement or something similar. It seems there is something implied that is of relatively big consequence if you don't do what you must, in a sense. On the other hand, "får" can be taken as being permitted to do something. So it doesn't always translate back to "must" in the same sense that "måste" does. So, your first example - "Du FÅR vänta en timme" _could_ be the response to the question "Do I have to do this now, or can I wait a bit?" So the answer then translates to "You're allowed to wait an hour". On the other hand, if the question was "Can I please do this right away? I have to meet someone in half an hour..." The answer "Du måste vänta en timme" means that "no, you can't do this now, you _have to_ wait an hour" (and therefore miss your appointment).


----------



## anekem

Thanks so much for the answers! 
I'm still a bit confused about the "tycker om" matter, but the use of "får" and "måste" is beginin' to clear up 

It seams that "får" can be treated as "may" sometimes, f.ex:

Får jag låna telefonen - May I use...
Om jag får säga min mening... - if I may say...

Am I right?


----------



## MattiasNYC

Yes, that's correct as far as I can see.

What is it about "tycker om" that still confuses you though?


----------



## anekem

You're very kind, thank you.

I've slept with the _tycker om_, than I gave it a second thought and I decided not to give it a third one... (if one can say so... ) There are worse things I have to face in Swedish, like _fram _& _framme_, that's what I'm doing right now actually and it's quite disastrous...

If "vara _framme_" means "to reach the destination", and the question: "Hur dags är vi _framme_?" means "When shall we get there?", than why the expression "maten står _framme_" means "the meal's on the table"???
And if _fram_ and _framme _have sth in common, because I know they do, just like _in/inte, ut/ute, up/uppe_, than why "jag måste _fram_" means "I must get through", not mentioning "_fram_ på dagen" traduced as "late in the morning". The last one killed me  
I'm afraid sleeping with it won't do this time...

I love Swedish really, it's so different from the languages I speak, but it keeps putting me to the test...


----------



## Ben Jamin

anekem said:


> You're very kind, thank you.
> 
> I've slept with the _tycker om_, than I gave it a second thought and I decided not to give it a third one... (if one can say so... ) There are worse things I have to face in Swedish, like _fram _& _framme_, that's what I'm doing right now actually and it's quite disastrous...
> 
> If "vara _framme_" means "to reach the destination", and the question: "Hur dags är vi _framme_?" means "When shall we get there?", than why the expression "maten står _framme_" means "the meal's on the table"???
> And if _fram_ and _framme _have sth in common, because I know they do, just like _in/inte, ut/ute, up/uppe_, than why "jag måste _fram_" means "I must get through", not mentioning "_fram_ på dagen" traduced as "late in the morning". The last one killed me
> I'm afraid sleeping with it won't do this time...
> 
> I love Swedish really, it's so different from the languages I speak, but it keeps putting me to the test...


You don't have to understand all the history behind a word to use it correctly. The native speakers usually don't reflect about such questions. You can spare your energy and memorize the actual usage of the word.
Having said this I can say that all words have an original meaning that was established some time ago, then the word gets often a new meaning, and then it sprouts out with many side meanings, often just figurative ones.
"Framme" meant originally just "placed in front", and it still does, while "fram" means "forwards".
"Framme" aquired the figurative meaning of "being on the table", because when you sit at the table then "maten är framme" means it is "placed in front" of you, or it can be explained with the other figurative meaning "the food has reached its destination", as "at vara framme" means to "reach a destination", which is usually in front of you if you go forwards.
Quite simple, isn't it?


----------



## anekem

Now it's totaly clear thanks so much!!!
You're right that one doesn't need to know the history of the words, natives ignore their origine just being able to use them freely and participating in the creation of the side meanings that you've mentioned. 
The explanation you gave me feeds my curiosity, that's all! 
Besides, once I understand sth, I memorize it automatically, so it saves my energy, doesn't it ?


----------



## Ben Jamin

anekem said:


> Besides, once I understand sth, I memorize it automatically, so it saves my energy, doesn't it ?


It may be so, yes.
Besides, compare the Polish slang expressions „Mieć coś do przodu/do tyłu”. 
(I don't know if they are still used).
Not the same meaning, but a figurative use of spatial expressions too.


----------



## jonquiliser

Ben Jamin said:


> "Framme" meant originally just "placed in front", and it still does, while "fram" means "forwards".
> "Fram" aquired the figurative meaning of "being on the table", because when you sit at the table then "maten är framme" means it is "placed in front" of you, or it can be explained with the other figurative meaning "the food has reached its destination", as "at vara framme" means to "reach a destination", which is usually in front of you if you go forwards.
> Quite simple, isn't it?



Unless I'm completely mistaken, _fram_ is not figurative in the least. _Fram_ and _framme_ represent old grammatically forms where _fram_ is the direction and _framme_ is the (reached) location. So you _ställer fram maten_ and once you've done that _står maten framme.
_
(What I mean is that the expression is figurative only if you compare/translate to English; to me the expression is idiomatic but not figurative.)


----------



## Ben Jamin

jonquiliser said:


> Unless I'm completely mistaken, _fram_ is not figurative in the least. _Fram_ and _framme_ represent old grammatically forms where _fram_ is the direction and _framme_ is the (reached) location. So you _ställer fram maten_ and once you've done that _står maten framme._


Sorry! A typo. I meant of course: _"Framme" aquired the figurative meaning of "being on the table"._


----------



## jonquiliser

Ben Jamin said:


> Sorry! A typo. I meant of course: _"Framme" aquired the figurative meaning of "being on the table"._



Ok, but I'd say the same: it's not a figurative expression.


----------



## Ben Jamin

jonquiliser said:


> Ok, but I'd say the same: it's not a figurative expression.


What is it then?


----------



## jonquiliser

Ben Jamin said:


> What is it then?



Just regular adverbs. Cf. hem/hemma, ut/ute, dit/där, in/inne etc. Sometimes used with verbs forming phrasal verbs: _ställa fram, lägga undan, ställa ut, gå in_.


----------



## anekem

Ben Jamin said:


> Besides, compare the Polish slang expressions „Mieć coś do przodu/do tyłu”.
> (I don't know if they are still used).


They are still used!


----------



## Segorian

Ben Jamin said:


> What is it then?


The opposite: a literal expression.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Segorian said:


> The opposite: a literal expression.


So you say that "maten är framme" is to be translated literally: "food is in the front"?


----------



## jonquiliser

Ben Jamin said:


> So you say that "maten är framme" is to be translated literally: "food is in the front"?



This is just a misunderstanding of what literal means – it doesn't mean that two languages will be literal in the same way, since clearly this is not the way English works here. Actually, "food is in the front" is *not* what _maten är framme_ means, that would be _maten är framför oss_ or some such thing.

What we're saying is that the expression is the way we say it in Swedish, not as an approximation or a figure or speech or anything like that, but just plainly noting the place. Please see my previous post about grammar.

-- I'm wondering if you thing the expression is figurative because you think it derives from "ställa fram maten på bordet"? You can say this, but "på bordet" is not an essential part of the expression. You can also say _jag ställer fram något åt dig att äta när du kommer hem sent ikväll_ – which could be just on the kitchen worktop. It's just that the table is the most common place to eat, so that's why sometimes we add that to the expression.


----------



## Ben Jamin

jonquiliser said:


> This is just a misunderstanding of what literal means – it doesn't mean that two languages will be literal in the same way, since clearly this is not the way English works here. Actually, "food is in the front" is *not* what _maten är framme_ means, that would be _maten är framför oss_ or some such thing.
> 
> What we're saying is that the expression is the way we say it in Swedish, not as an approximation or a figure or speech or anything like that, but just plainly noting the place. Please see my previous post about grammar.
> 
> -- I'm wondering if you thing the expression is figurative because you think it derives from "ställa fram maten på bordet"? You can say this, but "på bordet" is not an essential part of the expression. You can also say _jag ställer fram något åt dig att äta när du kommer hem sent ikväll_ – which could be just on the kitchen worktop. It's just that the table is the most common place to eat, so that's why sometimes we add that to the expression.


Well, I see now that I was not precise enough in my posting. What I should have written is: "Framme"  aquired the _idiomatic _meaning of "being on the table", which was originally figurative.


----------



## jonquiliser

Ben Jamin said:


> Well, I see now that I was not precise enough in my posting. What I should have written is: "Framme"  aquired the _idiomatic _meaning of "being on the table", which was originally figurative.


But this is not the case! It isn't figurative or idiomatic in any derived sense; like Segorian said, it's literal. 

I don't know how to explain it if you don't see it from my previous posts. But maybe it doesn't really matter, if it helps you memorise it, then go ahead.


----------



## Segorian

Ben Jamin said:


> So you say that "maten är framme" is to be translated literally: "food is in the front"?


No, _literal_ does not mean the same thing when referring to translations as when referring to the meaning of a word. In the context of meanings, _literal_ means ‘nonfigurative’. In the context of translations, _literal_ means ‘word-for-word’. Another way to put it is that – literally speaking (!) – there are no ‘figurative’ translations, only the use of figurative language in a translation.

What we _are_ saying is that in the sentence _Maten står framme_, the word _framme_ still has the literal meaning of having been ‘placed in front’ that you explained in your first post in this thread. To take another example, we can say that someone _har kniven framme_, which means that the person referred to is holding the knife in his/her hand, but that does *not* mean, in turn, that _framme_ has in this expression acquired the figurative sense of ‘i handen’.

Quite often, _framme_ simply means ‘out’: ‘The food is out on the table’, ‘The attacker had the knife out’.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Great. Now my brain hurts.... :-(


----------



## anekem

Don't look at me, I just asked an innocent question that decided to live its own life I supposed...

By the way... how would you say it in swedish, could it be: "min hjärna gör ont"?


----------

