# Danish: du skal  [harsh?]



## MattiasNYC

I've been watching Forbrydelsen, and something stood out to me. I never really learned Danish well (I'm Swedish) and I've always had a hard time actually hearing the words. Actually, hearing them is worse than understanding them.....

Anyway, so now I'm paying attention although it's subtitled in English, and the one thing that stood out to me is that it seems that in Danish "Du skall" (sorry, that was spelled in Swedish) gets translated to "I want you to" or something similar.

To my Swedish - and English - ear "Du skall vänta här." for example sounds like a command, very "hard" and for lack of a better word 'unfriendly', compared to the translation "Please wait here". 

Is this translation correct and it actually sounds less "harsh" in Danish?


----------



## bicontinental

> the one thing that stood out to me is that *it seems that in Danish "Du skall*" (sorry, that was spelled in Swedish) *gets translated to "I want you to"* or something similar.





> To my Swedish - and English - ear* "Du skall vänta här."* for example *sounds *like a command*,* very "hard" and for lack of a better word '*unfriendly', compared to the translation "Please wait here*".




From the above, I’m not sure I understand you correctly; are you saying that “du skal…” is translated into “I want you to…” or as “please wait here.”?

Without further context I'd say that the construction with skulle (i.e. '_du skal vente her'_) is used to express a command or a necessity, _you must wait here, _or_ you have to wait here._ As always, the tone of voice (and context) may soften or harden what is being said...even "please wait here!!" will sound like more like a command than a friendly request if it is hurled brusquely at the recipient. Likewise there's a difference between,
_du skal (lige) vente her_...vs. _du *skal *vente her _
But regardless, I'd say that the English "please wait here" is overall too soft and polite a translation for the majority of cases.

Did that answer your question? 
Bic.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Yes, it sort of did. I suppose there is the type of nuance we usually see in language and perhaps the translation I saw wasn't optimal. To my ears it definitely sounded harsh. That said, I've never been good at understanding Danish unfortunately (I do better at Norwegian, might be regional thing (I'm not from the south of Sweden)). 

In case you are unfamiliar with the show; the main character is a bit "hard", especially for being a woman, so perhaps that's why the translation seemed at odds with how it sounded to me. But I still can't shake the feeling that perhaps there's a difference between Swedish and Danish in this aspect, one that I'm unaware of. If you have any other examples you can think of it'd be interesting to read.

Thanks for your reply!


----------



## Sepia

No, MathiasNYC is right in his assumption that "du skal ..." is not necessarily harsh. "Du skal vente her", without stressing the word "skal" simply means "this is where you should wait" or "this is where I want you to wait". "Skal" is also used a lot to describe the general plan: "Vi skal paa ferie i morgen", "vi skal se fodboldkampen paa loerdag". This is obviously not an order. It is just telling what you have planned.

If I say "du skulle nu vente her", it is more like "you should have waited here (but you didn't and I am a bit pissed off because of that)". Whereas "du skulle have ventet her", may simply mean, "your own fault that you did not wait here."

So "skal" can be translated in a lot of ways starting with "is/are" "should", "ought to" ...


----------



## MattiasNYC

Thanks!

I wish I had taken Danish and Norwegian more seriously when I studied it in school. Too short a time, too long ago...


----------



## bicontinental

MattiasNYC said:


> In case you are unfamiliar with the show; the main character is a bit "hard", especially for being a woman, so perhaps that's why the translation seemed at odds with how it sounded to me. But I still can't shake the feeling that perhaps there's a difference between Swedish and Danish in this aspect, one that I'm unaware of. If you have any other examples you can think of it'd be interesting to read.




Hi again,

No, I’m afraid I´m not familiar with the show, but your description of the tough female police officer is quite helpful for understanding the context. And true to her character, this officer tells someone in a rather harsh and unfriendly tone of voice, _Du skal blive her,_ which gets translated into _Please stay here. Y_ou find this translation too soft, is that correct?

Like the other modal verbs, _skulle_ has many different usages depending on the tense (and mode…although the latter is essentially non-existent also in Danish). In this forum there have been prior discussions about the use of modals in the Scandinavian languages, in case you're interested... Additionally this pdf document has a short but quite good summary of the modals and their use (albeit it Danish…but at least it’s in written Danish!) http://dualis.dk/undervisning/dk01-modalverber.pdf

But going back to your specific example in the present tense, “_Du skal vente her [nu_]”. Skulle (skal) is used _imperatively _in this context expressing a need or necessity like “_Katten skal fodres"_ (nødvendighed...example from the document referenced above). Some additional examples of similar usage are,

_Du skal lave dine lektier. Du skal gøre, hvad jeg siger. Du skal rydde op efter dig. Du skal redde din seng. Du skal spise din mad. Du skal opføre dig ordentligt!_
As I suggested above, the tone of voice will be important for the correct or most appropriate translation. An irate or irritated individual will emphasize "skal" and the equivalent English translation would be, _you need to/must/have to stay here _or simply_ stay here! _A more soft-spoken rendition of the sentence could come closer to _Please stay here_. On the other hand, as you know, _PLEASE STAY HERE!!! _is not particularly warm and welcoming in the English language either. 

I don't think Danish is much different from the other Scandinavian languages in this respect...or from English for that matter. It's not what you say but how you say it. 

Best,
Bic.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Thanks again.

I think, and I have to go by memory here because I never thought of this before, that Swedish doesn't really use a "softer" "skall" as much as Danish then does. To me "skall" sounds very commanding with very few exceptions. The one I could think of would be one where you are filling out forms for some purpose and I'm helping you "Och sedan skall du bara skriva under...." That to me sounds fairly "soft". But something like "Du skall uppföra dig ordentligt" in Swedish sounds very commanding... "Du skall vänta här." Same thing. Very commanding.

I just get the impression there is more nuance in Danish.

I thought the show was overrated by the way. Good acting, mediocre writing....


----------



## raumar

I'll try to add a Norwegian perspective on this question. On the one hand, I agree with Mattias: "_Du skal vente her_" sounds rude in Norwegian as well, also without stressing the word "_skal_". If the intention is to say "this is where you should wait", I would rather say "_Du kan vente her_" or "_Du får vente her_" in Norwegian (without stressing "_kan/får_" -- stress on these words would change the meaning).

On the other hand, I agree with Bicontinental that "_skal_" can be softened in many ways -- also in Norwegian. A Norwegian parallel to Bicontinental's example "_Du skal lige vente her"_ could be "_Du skal bare vente litt her"_. These inserted words take the rudeness away. Couldn't you say something similar in Swedish?


----------



## DerFrosch

raumar said:


> Couldn't you say something similar in Swedish?



No, I really don't think you can. "Du ska(ll) vänta lite här" is not something you would say. (Note: _skall _is normally shortened to _ska _in contemporary Swedish.) I'm pretty convinced there's an important difference here between Danish and Swedish.

In many ways Swedish _skola (_the infinitive form_) _and Danish _skulle _do work in the same way. We may also use _ska _to express necessity, although I'm sure we don't use it quite as often as Danes use _skal. _As I understand it, English _must _is often translated as _skal_, whereas this is almost always translated as _måste _in Swedish. Furthermore, when _ska _is used to express necessity, it's normally used in the passive voice (just like "Katten skal fodres" in bincontinental's example above). When used with _du_, it does sound very commanding, as Mattias remarked.

If for example a colleague told me "_Du ska vänta här_", I would react strongly. That's more like something a master would say to his slave. It implies "You shall do so because I say so. What you think about is irrelevant". I'd say that the only time the word combination "_Du ska_" isn't rude is when it's clear that the person saying it is refering to a decision/order made by someone else (for example: "_Chefen har sagt att du ska vänta här_").

"_Du skall_" also makes me think of the Ten Commandments: "Du skall icke dräpa". According to Wikipedia, in Danish this is "_Du må ikke slå ihjel_." So I'm guessing that to a Swede, "_Du ska vänta här_" sounds approximately like "_Du må blive her_" does to a Dane. Quite harsh, right?


----------



## MattiasNYC

DerFrosch,

Thanks so much for your input - I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one that perceives the difference.


----------



## bicontinental

Interesting points, thanks so much everyone!

@DerFrosch,


> "_Du skall_" also makes me think of the Ten Commandments: "Du skall icke dräpa". According to Wikipedia, in Danish this is "_Du må ikke slå ihjel_." So I'm guessing that to a Swede, "_Du ska vänta här_" sounds approximately like "_Du må blive her_" does to a Dane. Quite harsh, right?



Incidentally, I’m afraid the deductive reasoning above doesn’t work in this case. It is true that the commandments in the negative take the modal verb (_ikke) at måtte_ in Danish (at least in more recent versions of the Bible) however, the affirmative commandments are introduced by _Du skal_,

i.e. _Du *skal* ære din fader og moder_ (far og mor), but _Du *må ikke* slå ihjel._

_Du må blive her_...I think that´s another topic for another thread! 

Bic.


----------



## DerFrosch

bicontinental said:


> It is true that the commandments in the negative take the modal verb (_ikke) at måtte_ in Danish (at least in more recent versions of the Bible) however, the affirmative commandments are introduced by _Du skal_,



I noticed that. So what's the reason for it? Why not "_Du skal ikke slå ihjä_l" or "_Du må ære din fader og moder_"?


----------



## bicontinental

^^^As mentioned above the modal verb _at skulle_ expresses a necessity, something imperative (_du skal vente her, du skal ære din far or mor _etc.) or, depending on the context, something that’s planned for the future (_Jeg skal til Europa i sommerferien_) even with undertones of a promise (_Jeg skal nok gøre det_).

_At måtte_ used affirmatively expresses permission, _Må jeg låne din bog? Ja det må du (gerne)_. It also indicates a necessity, something done by exclusion (_Bussen er kørt...nå, så må jeg cykle til skole_). I don´t think other nuances would be relevant to your question. As an aside, I believe this is an area prone to confusion amongst Danes and Norwegians.

_At måtte_ used in negative sentences or statements indicates a prohibition, that something is not allowed. _Må jeg låne din bog? _(permission)_…nej, det *må* du *ikke*_ (prohibition)_. Du *må ikke* gå på græsset, du *må ikke* ryge her etc. Du *må ikke* slå ihjel._

In terms of the Ten Commandments…
_Du *må* ære din fader og moder_ would give the idea that you/we are allowed or given permission to honor them; in a different context it might sound like an act done out of necessity, …_du må ære din far og mor (selvom du er uenig med dem _for instance.)

_Du *skal* ære din far og mor_…on the other hand is a command, it´s imperative that you honor your parents. You must honor them.

And,

_Du *skal ikke* slå ihjel_ would in comtemporary Danish sound like more like it´s not necessary for you to kill, you don´t need to/have to. I think older versions of the Bible may have used that terminology, though. _Du *må ikke* slå ihjel_ is a definite command not to kill.

Best,

Bic.


----------



## DerFrosch

Thanks for that explanation, bicontinental, it cleared things up for me. So _Du må blive her_ actually means _You are allowed to/may/can wait here_, not harsh at all, then! 

These modal verbs are interesting, as a speaker of one of the Nordic languages you're sometimes under the impression that you understand them (the modal verbs) pretty well, only to realize that there are fine nuances to them that you weren't aware of at first. Or, in some cases, that they mean something completely different than you thought.


----------



## bicontinental

DerFrosch said:


> So _Du må blive her_ actually means _You are allowed to/may/can wait here_, not harsh at all, then!



Yes 
...And I agree with your thoughts on the modal verbs; there are numerous ways to create semantic nuances by changing the context, the tone of voice, by adding adverbs and other filler words etc.

Bic.


----------

