SaySomethingin Swedish

[martin-kahnberg]

Finally managed to get the app working again - sort of… It still stops every now and then (forcing me to use the “play audio” instead of the app). When the downloaded audio has finished I restart the app, get an error message about trouble generating audio, and then get a few new phrases in the app before it stops again (and the whole procedure restarts).

Anyway - here’s the rest of the comments up to “black stripe on orange belt”.

• “Now I am a little tired” (“Hur jag är lite trött”): The Swedish means “HOW I am a little tired”. The correct Swedish should be “Nu är jag lite trött”.

• “Do you feel” (“Mår du”): Tricky one… “Do you feel” on its own is “Känner du”, as in “Do you feel the preasure?” (“Känner du pressen?”) or “Do you feel exited?” (“Känner du dig upphetsad?”). In expressions like “How do you feel?” and “You feel fine” the Swedish tends to be “Hur känner du dig?” and “Jag känner mig bra” - but “känna sig” and “må” are synonyms (but “må” is “känna sig”, never “känna”). There are however situations where you need to use “känna sig” and not “må” - you can’t ever say “Mår du upphetsad?” (it has to be “Känner du dig upphetsad?”).
  Come to think of it, Swedish “Hur mår du?” is more “How are you?” than “How do you feel?”. As I’m not a native English speaker I’m not sure if “How are you?” and “How do you feel?” are perfect synonyms in English, but I don’t think they are. In Welsh you have “Sut wyt ti?” and “Sut wyt ti’n teimlo?”, so the two aren’t perfect synonyms in Welsh either.

• “Do you feel right now” (“Mår du just nu”): “Mår du just nu” is a chunk that can’t be used in Swedish. “Do you feel right now” has to be “Känner du just nu”. Adding “OK” to the phrase (“Do you feel OK right now?”) would make “Mår du bra just nu?” a candidate - but most Swedes would use “Känner du dig ok just nu?”.

• “I am a little now” (“Jag är lite nu”): This Swedish expression is impossible, because you can’t ever have “är lite nu” in that order. The chunk “I am a little now” is “Nu är jag lite” in Swedish. If you want to have “now” at the end you need to add the word “lite” is modifying, as in “Nu är jag lite trött” / “Jag är lite trött nu” (I’m a little tired now).

• “But I am really tired” (“Men jag är jätte trött”): If you write the Swedish that way (“jätte trött”) you’re talking about a tired giant. “Really tired” is “jättetrött” (one word) in Swedish - or even better “verkligen trött”.

• “How do you feel right now but” (“Hur mår du just nu men”): Impossible Swedish phrase. You can’t ever add “men” to a “Hur” question, and the “Hur mår du” chunk is a question. This is equal to teaching that “I buy pink shit” or “I am sheeting” are good English phrases (yes - Swedes tend to use such English phrases), or that “There’s no cow on the eyes” is a valid English proverb… Please just remove this chunk.

• “Now I have” (“Nu jag har”): This is incorrect. “Nu jag har” is impossible in Swedish. It has to be “Nu har jag” or “Jag har nu” due to the V2 rule. E.g. “Now I’ve done it” - “Nu har jag gjort det” or “Jag har gjort det nu” (“Jag har nu gjort det” is also possible but less frequently used).

More to come, now that I’ve managed to figure out how to force the app to progress.

[Kai]

Hey everyone - I have an initial version of Swedish with a bunch of these fixes almost ready! It hasn’t fixed everything mentioned above as I’ve run out of time, but I will be coming back to them soon.

The new version has just been uploaded, meaning that I’m just waiting for someone from the tech team to pick it up and put it on the app. After a quick check that it’s still running it will be made live, and I’ll let you know here when that’s happened and what to expect from the new version

[martin-kahnberg]

Nice!
Hopefully I’ll get that new version the next time I make a run then.

Here’s the bunch collected these last 3 hours or so…

• “How do you feel right now but” (“Hur mår du just nu men”)

• “How do you feel right now and” (“Hur mår du just nu och”): I think I had one of these two earlier, but it’s very very unusual (i.e. I can’t even think of any situation when you can do it) to join two different phrases when the first one starts with “Hur” in Swedish. “Hur” (at the start of a phrase) always indicates a question, so joining another phrase at the end of that question simply makes no sense at all. “Hur mår du” IS a question, and thus the “och” and “men” at the end of these two phrases can’t ever happen. You can however have “hur du mår just nu och/men” within a joined phrase - but it HAS to be WITHIN. e.g. “Jag ville fråga dig hur du mår just nu och om det blir bättre.” (I wanted to ask you how you are right now and if it’s getting better.)

• “I wanted you” (“Jag ville dig”)

• “You wanted me” (“Du ville mig”): Combining these two, as they address the same thing. “I wanted you” is “Jag ville ha dig” and “You wanted me” is “Du ville ha mig” when left on their own this way. It IS possible (but oldfasioned) to say “Jag ville dig något”/“Du ville mig något” in Swedish - in everyday speak you will hear “Jag ville att du” / “Du ville att jag” as phrase-starters (“You wanted me to…”), so my suggestion is to completely remove these two chunks as “Du ville ha mig” tends to indicate making love.

• “I feel okay” (“Jag mår okej”): As indicated earlier, “I feel okay” is “Jag känner mig okej” in Swedish. The Swedish “Jag mår okej” is “I’m okay” in English.

• “How I feel okay” (“Hur jag mår okej”): There has to be a comma and a questionmark in both languages to make the Swedish phrase work: “… how I am, ok?” - “… hur jag mår, okej?” (e.g. “Du ska fråga hur jag mår, okej?” - “You need to ask me how I am, ok?”). If you have “hur jag mår” followed by “okej” in Swedish, then the “okej” part has to be a tag question (and thus needing a comma before it).

• “I feel now” (“Jag mår nu”): This is a useless chunk. “Jag mår nu” is impossible in Swedish. It has to be “Nu mår jag” - and it’s really “I’m now” more than “I feel now”, e.g. “Nu mår jag okej” (“I’m ok now”).

• “Do you feel now” (“Mår du nu”): Another impossible chunk. You can’t ever combine “mår du” and “nu” without anything in-between, as in “Mår du bra nu?” (“Are you ok now?”) or “Mår du sämre nu?” (“Are you worse now?” / “Is it worse now?”).

• “Because now” (“För nu”): Sure - “för nu” is used in Stockholm Swedish as a direct translation of English “For now” or “For the moment”, but “för nu” is NEVER the same as “Because now”. “Because now” is “För att nu” in Swedish, or usually “Eftersom … nu”.

• “Or how” (“Eller hur”): One of the most common Swedish phrases… BUT - and this is important - “eller hur?” is “isn’t it?” / “init?” in English. It’s the most common Swedish tag question in Stockholm Swedish (it’s very seldom used in western Swedish, where the phrase “ha?” is used instead). “Or how” can be “Eller hur” in Swedish - but only as a part of a complex sentense like “Jag vill fråga hur det känns eller hur det kändes” - “I’d like to ask how it feels or how you felt”. Given how early it is introduced I would probably suggest that you skip this chunk and add it as the “eller hur?” tag question later on.

• “Need” (“Behöver”): Well - it CAN be, but “Need” on its own tends to be “behöva” in Swedish. It might be wise to add “Need to” (“Behöva”) as well when introducing it, as in “I need to” (“Jag behöver”) and “I need to go” (“Jag behöver gå”).

• “How I need” (“Hur jag behöver”): I’m struggling to see how this is supposed to be used in Swedish. It CAN be used, but that’s at the university level… “Hur behöver jag…?” (“How I need…?”) is far more common, but the questionmark needs to be there to make it work as a possible chunk.

• “How now” (“Hur nu”): Impossible chunk. “Hur” and “nu” can’t ever be next to each other in modern Swedish.

• “Improve” (“Förbättra”): Well - this is only partly true. “Improve” CAN be “förbättra” in Swedish, but in that case there has to be something added that can be improved. “Improve” on its own is “Förbättra något” in Swedish, where the “något” can be replaced by “mig” (“me”) or “resultatet” (“the result”) or “sig” (“himself, herself, themselves”) or whatever you want.

• “Myself” (“Mig”): No, this is actually incorrect. “Myself” is “mig själv” in Swedish. There are occations when “mig” becomes “myself” in English (e.g. “Jag tvättar mig” - “I wash myself”), but that’s only because the Swedish “tvätta” (to wash) needs an object e.g. “mig” (myself), “kläderna” (the clothes), “bilen” (the car). IF the Swedish “mig” corresponds to “myself” in English it’s always an effect of the verb. Swedish “mig” is “me” in English.

• “I need myself” (“Jag behöver mig”): Well - it IS possible to say “Jag behöver mig” in Swedish, but I can’t think of any situation when it could ever be used… Swedish “Jag behöver dig” is “I need you” (not “I need yourself”), so teaching that “Jag behöver mig” is “I need myself” is a very bad idea. It will just complicate things later on, without adding anything useful at all.

• “If I need to improve” (“Om jag behöver förbättra”): The English chunk can be used on its own. The Swedish chunk needs an object at the end, e.g. “Om jag behöver förbättra mig” or “Om jag behöver förbättra något”.

• “Or I need” (“Eller jag behöver”): Sure, it’s possible. But Swedish “Eller jag behöver” is also “Or I need to” in English. E.g. “Eller jag behöver mat” (Or I need food), “Eller jag behöver jobba” (Or I need to work). The way to get around this is to use “need” only for objects (as “behöva” in Swedish) and “have to” for verbs (as “måste” in Swedish), e.g. “I need a car” (“Jag behöver en bil”) or “I have to work” (“Jag måste jobba”). Swedish “måste” needs to be followed by a verb, just like “have to” in English - and both of them works when negating as well, e.g. “I don’t have to work” (“Jag måste inte jobba”).

• “Or now” (“Eller nu”): Sure, the Swedish chunk is used - but only in spoken language (because when it’s written down the “eller” thinking filler word is left out or a comma is added to separate “eller” from “nu” as in “Eller, nu vet jag inte riktigt.” (Well, I’m not really sure now). No matter how it’s used the Swedish “Eller nu” isn’t “Or now” in English - so just remove the chunk.

• “Need to improve myself” (“Behöver förbättra mig”): No. The Enlish chunk is “Behöver förbättra mig själv” in Swedish. “Behöver förbättra mig” is “Need to improve” in English.

• “If need to improve myself” (“Om behöver förbättra mig”): This is VERY incorrect. It’s grammatically incorrect (because there needs to be a subject or an object between “if” and “need” in Swedish due to the V2 rule). Remove it. It doesn’t even work as a chunk as the parts can’t be linked.

• “If with you” (“Om med dig”): I think I’ve commented on a similar phrase earlier. If you find “om med dig” as a chain in Swedish, the Swedish “om” isn’t the English word “if” but a verbal particle as in “tycka om” (to like), “köra om” (to overtake), “krama om” (to hug). Just remove it, as it’s incorrect the way it is now.

“I need to improve myself” (“Jag behöver förbättra mig”): Well - the Swedish phrase “Jag behöver förbättra mig” is quite frequent - but it doesn’t mean “I need to improve myself” (which is “Jag behöver förbättra mig själv” in Swedish). In Swedish you can say “Jag behöver förbättra mig i svenska”, but that corresponds to “I need to improve my Swedish” (not to “I need to improve myself in Swedish”). Another frequent Swedish phrase is “Jag behöver förbättra mig på att skriva”, which is “I need to improve my writing” in English (never “I need to improve myself on to write” )

• “Improve now” (“Förbättra nu”): No. If you have “Improve now” as a chunk on its own the corresponding Swedish chunk is “Förbättra dig nu!”.

• “How I need to improve myself” (“Hur jag behöver förbättra mig”): The Swedish chunk can occur, but not corresponding to that English chunk. Most of the time “How I need to improve myself” would correspond to “Hur behöver jag förbättra mig själv?” in Swedish - and it really tends to be a question on its own (no chance of adding anything anywhere). As a question it really corresponds to “How do I need to improve myself?” in English.

• “Now I have learned for” (“Nu har jag lärt mig i”): Well… ONLY if you add the time period afterwards. The English chunk doesn’t require a time period, e.g. “Now I have learned for the exam”, which is “Nu har jag lärt mig inför tentan” or “Nu har jag lärt mig till tentan” in Swedish (so no “i” anywhere in any of those corresponding Swedish phrases). This chunk isn’t really useful without the time period.

• “Learn more” (“Lära mig mer”): Well, where’s the reference to “me” in the English chunk? How would a learner know that only “Lära MIG mer” is correct, given that “Lära DIG” has been used earlier as the Swedish for “learn”? The Swedish has to be “Lära sig mer”, simply because there isn’t any way of knowing which person it’s referring to as a chunk.

• “To worry” (“Oroa mig”): Wel - again there’s no reference to “me” in the English chunk. “To worry” is “att oroa sig” in Swedish. English “I worry” is “Jag oroar mig” in Swedish.

• “I don’t need now” (“Jag behöver inte nu”): I couldn’t help laughing when this chunk was given to me. The Swedish chunk is frequently used by kids/toddlers, and it means “I don’t need to go to the toilet now”. I’m not sure if it’s such a useful thing to learn when you’re learning a foreign language (because you tend to be older than 7 when you use SSi).

• “Do you feel right now” (“Mår du just nu”): Well - two errors here. “Mår du just nu” is a question, and it doesn’t make any sense. “Do you feel right now” is “Känner du just nu…?” in Swedish (and the questionmark is important, as this has to be the start of a question due to the V2 rule).

• “About” (“För”): Now you’re making things really complicated… “About” CAN be “för” in Swedish, but only when linked to certain verbs. “About” is “om” or “omkring” in Swedish most of the time.

• “And about” (“Och för”): No. If you have “Och för” in Swedish it’s NEVER “and about” in English. Most of the time “och för” is “and for”, and “och för att” is “and because”. The English “And about” is “och om” or “och omkring” in Swedish.

• “Worry about” (“oroa mig för”): Again - “mig” needs to be “sig” because there’s nothing to indicate 1st person. And “worry about” can be “oroa sig inför” and “oroa sig om” as well… Add the thing you’re worried about, and the Swedish chunk will make sense. Without the object there’s no way of knowing what preposition to use in Swedish.

• “I don’t need about” (“Jag behöver inte för”): There’s no way these two chunks can be linked. As a stand-alone chunk the English “I don’t need about” is “Jag behöver inte om” in Swedish. The Swedish “Jag behöver inte, för (att)…” is “I don’t need to, because…” in English.

• “I don’t need to make” (“Jag behöver inte att göra”): WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? No way! Never! This isn’t even Swedish - not even on the Finnish side of the border. English “I don’t need to make” is “Jag behöver inte göra” in Swedish. “Need to” + verb = “behöver” + verb.

• “Mistakes” (“Fel”): Well - this is a mistake. “Mistakes” is “Misstag” in Swedish. Swedish “fel” is “error” in English.

• “I don’t need mistakes” (“Jag behöver inte fel”): Swedish “Jag behöver inte fel” is “I don’t need any errors” in English. “I don’t need mistakes” is “Jag behöver inga misstag” in Swedish.

• “I am a little now” (“Jag är lite nu”): Bad chunk in Swedish, because “lite” and “nu” can’t be next to each other.

• “I don’t need make mistakes” (“Jag behöver inte göra fel”): Well… Nothing wrong with the Swedish chunk - but it means “I don’t have to make any errors”. Given the bad syntax of the English chunk I’d say it’s better to change it to the correct translation or simply get rid of it all.

• “And remember” (“Och komma ihåg”): I think I’ve touched this one earlier, but the Swedish phrase corresponding to “And remember” in English is really “Och kom ihåg!”.

• “About making mistakes” (“För att göra fel”): Well - only if you have a verb that requires “för”. “About making mistakes” is really “Om att göra misstag” in Swedish. (Same thing if you add “And” at the start)

• “I don’t need about making mistakes” (“Jag behöver inte för att göra fel”): The Swedish chunk doesn’t make any sense… The only possible interpretation of that Swedish chunk is “I need a not/naught in order to make an error”.

• “To make mistakes now” (“Att göra fel nu”): This has to be “Att göra misstag nu” in Swedish. Sorry.

• “I don’t need to worry about mistakes” (“Jag behöver inte oroa mig för fel”): Again - this has to be “misstag” in Swedish.

• “How I am a little tired” (“Hur jag är lite trött”): Impossible Swedish. Can’t be used. “… hur jag kan vara lite trött” is possible, but not a frequenly used one.

• “Worry about making mistakes” (“Oroa mig för att göra fel”): Again no reference to 1st person anywhere in the English chunk, so the Swedish chunk needs to have “sig” instead of “mig” - and “misstag” is better than “fel” here as well.

• “But I don’t need to worry about making mistakes” (“Men jag behöver inte oroa mig för att göra fel”): Well, this is interesting… The English phrase is correct, and only means one thing (you don’t need to worry). The Swedish phrase is a double one… It’s either “But I don’t need to worry about making errors” or “There’s no need for me to worry in order to make errors”. Changing “fel” to “misstag” makes it more correct, but there’s no way to get rid of the double message in the Swedish phrase. You’ll simply make mistakes, no matter if you’re worried about making them or not.

• “I think” (“Jag tycker”): No. “I think” on its own is “Jag tänker” in Swedish. You need a longer chunk in order to force it to become “Jag tycker” in Swedish. (“Jag tycker” is usually “My opinion is” in English.)

• “Because I think” (“För jag tycker”): This is incorrect. “Because I think” is “För att jag tänker” or “På grund av att jag tänker” in Swedish.

• “I don’t care about making mistakes” (“Jag bryr mig inte om att göra fel”): Well… This is a bad translation, really… The Swedish “Jag bryr mig inte om att göra fel” means “I can’t be bothered to make errors”. There are contexts where you could get another meaning, but you need to hear the phrase spoken in order to understand that. “Jag bryr mig inte” is “I don’t care”, “Jag bryr mig inte, om att göra fel” (low tone needed on “om”) is “I don’t care about errors”, and “Jag bryr mig inte om” is “I can’t be bothered” (high tone, slight stress, on “om”) and “Jag bryr mig inte om att göra fel” (with the corresponding high tone on “om”) is “I can’t be bothered with making errors” / “I can’t be bothered about making errors”).

• “I’m trying to practise speaking more” (“Jag försöker öva på att prata mer”): Tricky one. As a Swede I would say “Jag försöker öva mer på att prata” as the default here - but the English phrase is double… Either it’s “I’m trying to [practise speaking] more” or “I’m trying to practise [speaking more]” - and those two realisations correspond to different Swedish translations… “I’m trying to [practise speaking] more” is “Jag försöker öva mer på att prata” in Swedish, and “I’m trying to practise [speaking more]” is “Jag försöker öva på att prata mer”. In Swedish it’s also possible to say “Jag försöker öva mer på att prata mer”, which would be “I’m trying to increase the amout of additional speaking practise I do”…

• “So” (“Så att”): No, that’s really incorrect. “So” on its own is “så” in Swedish (as in “so much” - “så mycket”).

• “I’m trying to practise speaking more now” (“Jag försöker öva på att prata mer nu”): No. Adding the “now” part makes this “[practise speaking] more”, so the Swedish phrase has to be “Jag försöker öva mer på att prata nu”. If you want the “practise [speaking more]” version you need to have “Nu försöker jag öva på att prata mer” in Swedish.

• “Practise now” (“Öva på nu”): Well, no. Never. “Practise now” is “Öva nu” in Swedish. The Swedish “Öva på nu!” means “Keep on practising!” in English.

• “How I don’t care about making mistakes” (“Hur jag bryr mig inte om att göra fel”): No. The Swedish phrase is grammatically incorrect. It has to be “Hur jag inte bryr mig om att göra misstag” (statement) or “Hur bryr jag mig inte om att göra misstag?” as a question. Long live the V2 rule.

• “But because I think it’s good to make mistakes” (“Men för jag tycker att det är bra att göra fel”): The Swedish chunk is grammatically incorrect. “Men för att jag tycker att det är bra att göra fel” is possible, meaning “But because I’d say it’s good to make errors”.

• “And about making mistakes” (“Och för att göra fel”): No. Incorrect Swedish translation. The Swedish translation of “And about making mistakes” is “Och om att göra misstag”. The English translation of Swedish “Och för att göra fel” is “And in order to make errors”.

That was my green belt and a wee bit more.

[RichardBuck]

@martin-kahnberg

How I need

All these different, problematic chunks beginning with “Hur” are making me think of the similar patterns in the Portuguese, where there seem to be loads of perfectly valid sentences and chunks of sentences that get re-presented prefixed with como (“how”). I don’t have a detailed list like this, but it feels clunky and frequently stilted or unidiomatic; I’m not sure what the ‘how’ is meant to add to the sentences.

[Kai]

Version 1.1.0 is live!

I have incorporated all the comments as well as I’ve been able to do while still following the methodology in the beginning of the course (as well as changed a few things such as “för att”=“because” to be consistent throughout the course) - I’ll have to go through the rest of the comments after my Irish project, so look out for that next month

The voices have to stay the same for now - unfortunately there aren’t very many voice options available for Swedish, but I’ll keep checking in!

[martin-kahnberg]

(lol - there’s a limit of 32k characters that I bumped into this time…)

@Kai

Version 1.1.0 is live!

I have incorporated all the comments as well as I’ve been able to do while still following the methodology in the beginning of the course (as well as changed a few things such as “för att”=“because” to be consistent throughout the course) - I’ll have to go through the rest of the comments after my Irish project, so look out for that next month

The voices have to stay the same for now - unfortunately there aren’t very many voice options available for Swedish, but I’ll keep checking in!

Thanks for “confirming” my thoughts that the Swedish voices are generated. There were a few really weird voices in the bunch I had earlier today (not sure if I had 1.1.0, as I started 1 hour before your message and stopped 2 hours after). No need to get “real” speakers for the beta, after all. Better to get the course in a good shape and then get proper speakers.

Here’s the new bunch that you can start looking into when you get time. There are a few really severe errors in this bunch, and it was a bit disheartening to find them today.

• “So I can” (“Så att jag kan”): Ok, so this is the reason why “so” is introduced as “så att”… The problem here is that either “så att jag kan” or “så jag kan” is the correct translation of “so I can” depending on context. I would probably say that “så jag kan” is better to learn, because it’s easier to add the “att” than to remove it later.

• “So now” (“Så att nu”): I haven’t been able to think of any example where the English “so now” would translate as “så att nu” in Swedish. The Swedish “så att nu” tends to be “so that now” when translated into English, because the “så” tends to be the last part of the main clause and the “att” the first part of the subclause. If you have “so now” you usually get “så nu” in Swedish.

• “And so” (“Och så att”): Again the Swedish “och så att” tends to be “and so that” in English. “And so” is “och så” in Swedish 99% of the time, especially when you have “and so many/much/little” (“och så många/mycket/lite”).

• “But so” (“Men så att”): I’m really struggling to figure out any situation where “but so” would be “men så att” in Swedish as an intact chunk. Every English “but so” phrase I think of is “men så” or something completely different in Swedish. “Men så att” is “But so that” in English.

• “I can some words” (“Jag kan några ord”): Oh… Now you’re making this a Swinglish → Swedish course… “I can some words” is something many of our politicians would say, because they tend to translate Swedish word-by-word into “English” (that’s why you get “There’s no cow on the eyes”). The Swedish “Jag kan några ord” is “I know some words” or “I know a few words” in English - never “I can some words”.

• “So I can some words” (“Så att jag kan några ord”): This is actually incorrect Swedish… When you add “så att” like that you need another verb between “kan” and “några”. It’s possible to say “Så jag kan några ord” (so I know a few words) in Swedish, but not “Så att jag kan några ord”.

• “So I can how to say” (“Så att jag kan hur man säger”): Never. You might hear “Så att jag kan, hur säger man, …” in Swedish (where “hur säger man” is a thought filler while figuring out the word you really want to say), but if someone says “Så att jag kan hur man säger” you know that this is a non-native speaker due to the V2 failure. If you really want to keep this chunk you really need to change it into “Så att jag vet hur man säger” (So that I know what it’s called) or “Så jag vet hur man säger” (So I know how to say it).

• “I can how to say” (“Jag kan hur man säger”): Never. The Swedish has to be “Jag vet hur man säger det” (I know how to say it) or “Jag vet vad man säger” (I know what you say) or “Jag vet, hur säger man, …” (I know, whatsitcalled, …). Sorry.

• “I speak more” (“Jag prata mer”): Ok - how did this get through the filtering? This is incorrect, even though it’s a standard phrase in my native dialect - but in my native dialect “Jag prata mer” means “I was talking more” (so past tense, not present tense). And my native dialect is a spoken dialect only - so even if we say “Jag prata mer” we would write “Jag pratade mer”. What you really want as the translation of “I speak more” is “Jag pratar mer” (prataR), and that r is important (and if you want to get rid of it you need to teach southern spoken language, where r’s are silent in all dialects in a large part of southern Sweden - but not in the southernmost part where they use throat-r).

• “And practice” (“Och öva på”): As a stand-alone expression “And practice” has to be “Och öva” in Swedish. The Swedish “Och öva på” is “and keep on practicing” in English.

• “Because it’s good” (“För det är bra”): The “att” is really needed here (“För att det är bra”), so I’m happy that you decided to implement it throughout as the translation of “because”. This one ought to be sorted already - but feel free to check that it really is “För att det är bra” now.

• “Or I need to improve myself” (“Eller jag behöver förbättra mig”): Ouch… I guess you might hear an athlete say this in an interview - but in that case the “eller” at the start is a thought-filler only. There’s no way this can ever be correct. The translation you want of “Or I need to improve myself” is “Eller så att jag behöver förbättra mig själv”. You could possibly find “Eller att jag behöver förbättra mig själv”, but I think that the “så att” version would be more frequent.

• “Remember now” (“Kommer ihåg nu”): I commented on “Remember now” earlier, when it was translated as “Komma ihåg nu”. “Remember now” as a stand-alone phrase is “Kom ihåg nu” or “Kom nu ihåg” in Swedish. You need the context to force it into “kommer ihåg nu” (and it will quite frequently become “kommer nu ihåg” when it happens).

• “And remember” (“Och kommer ihåg”): As a stand-alone chunk “And remember” won’t ever be “Och kommer ihåg” in Swedish. It will always be “Och kom ihåg” (the imperative). You need a longer phrase in order to force it to be “och kommer ihåg”, and most of the time when you use it in a longer phrase you will get some subject between “och” and “kommer ihåg” e.g. “och jag kommer ihåg” (and I remember).

• “How I don’t remember” (“Hur jag kommer inte ihåg”): This was the first period of depression today… This is so very incorrect. You won’t even find children saying it this way. You really need to move “inte” here due to the V2 rule. If this is “How I don’t remember” (as a statement) you get “Hur jag inte kommer ihåg” in Swedish. If it’s “How I don’t remember?” (as a question) you get “Hur kommer jag inte ihåg?” in Swedish. Note that none of the two possible versions is the one taught in the course. This really need to be changed, or you might start teaching “Satana perkele” (not sure of the spelling) at the start of the Finnish course.

• “I’m going to soon” (“Jag ska snart”): Hmmm… I know what you try doing, but “Jag ska snart” as a stand-alone chunk is “I’ll soon” in English. You need to add the verb in order to make it “I’m going to”, and if you add the verb e.g. “Jag ska snart gå” you’ll get “I’m going to go soon” (i.e. the verb interferes with the English chunk unless you want to teach “I’m going to soon go”)… The correct translation of “I’m going to soon” is “Jag går snart till” in Swedish.

• “What” (“Det”): Deepening depression… English “what” is “vad” in Swedish. There are a few examples of “what” becoming “det” in complex Swedish subclauses, but that’s not what you’re teaching here (“… but that’s not what you’re teaching here” is one of those examples - “…, men det är inte det som lärs ut här” - but usually that phrase would be “…, men det är inte det ni lär ut här” in modern Swedish as most Swedes don’t even know the passive word “lärs”). See the list given here, and you’ll understand that “what” has to be introduced as “vad”.

• “And what” (“Och det”): Incorrect. “Och vad” is the translation here - always. Sorry.

• “But what” (“Men det”): Well, you might find this in university texts and old Swedish texts - but in modern Swedish you’ll only find “Men vad” as the translation of “But what”. Don’t over-complicate at such an early stage.

• “I remember what” (“Jag kommer ihåg det”): Yes, in old Swedish you might find that “I remember what you said” is translated as “Jag minns det du sa” (or “Jag hågar det som sas”), but in modern Swedish “I remember what you said” will always be “Jag kommer ihåg vad du sa”. The very common Swedish phrase “Jag kommer ihåg det” is “I remember it” in English.

• “I don’t remember what” (“Jag kommer inte ihåg det”): Again, you’ll only find “det” in old Swedish texts. In modern Swedish you’ll only ever find “Jag kommer inte ihåg vad” as the translation of English “I don’t remember what”. The English translation of Swedish “Jag kommer inte ihåg det” is “I don’t remember it”.

• “I practice” (“Jag öva på”): The black hole is bottomless today… “I practice” is “Jag övar” (another important r). If you have “Jag övar på” in Swedish it will be “I keep on practicing” in English - and note the r again… “Jag öva på” is simply incorrect - every time, everywhere. It’s as correct as saying “I by pink shiit” or “Think too me on you when leaves morrow” in English… Sorry.

• “What to say” (“Det säga”): What??? Where on Earth did the AI find “det säga” in a Swedish text? It’s an impossible construction. English “What to say” is “Vad ska man säga?” in Swedish, and that’s the only possible construction. (But errors like this one is thankfully one of the reasons AI generated email scams don’t work in Sweden - simply because AI still can’t figure out simple Swedish stuff… )

• “I come to say” (“Jag kommer säga”): Well… “Jag kommer säga” is a common Swedish phrase - but it’s “I’ll say” in English. The English “I come to say” would be “Jag kommer för att säga” in Swedish.

• “And about” (“Och för”): No. I can’t think of any phrase where this would be true. “And about” is “Och om” in Swedish.

• “I don’t remember how to say what I wanted to say” (“Jag kommer inte ihåg hur man säger det jag ville säga”): Well… Listen to the rendered voices here. They say “Jag kommer inte ihåg hur man säger det. Jag ville säga…”, and the reason is that the Swedish phrase is awkward and old. In modern Swedish we say “Jag kommer inte ihåg hur man säger vad jag ville säga” - or split it into two different phrases the way the voices do. Anyway - this is yet another phrase where “what” has to be “vad” in Swedish.

• “How to say what I wanted to say” (“Hur man säger det jag ville säga”): Well, again the voices are correct. They say “… hur man säger det. Jag ville säga…” as two separate phrases. The way to solve the problem is to go from old to modern and say “Hur man säger vad jag ville säga”. Again - “what” = “vad”.

• “I don’t remember what I wanted to say” (“Jag kommer inte ihåg det jag ville säga”): No. That doesn’t even sound like Swedish. The Swedish way to say it is “Jag kommer inte ihåg vad jag ville säga”. (Trying to remember what my friends from Åland say, but as far as I can remember not even they use “det” in a phrase like this one - but it’s still possible that the native Swedish speakers in Finland would use “det” in this phrase. The languages are drifting apart, after all.)

• “I don’t remember how to say what” (“Jag kommer inte ihåg hur man säger det”): Nothing wrong with the common Swedish phrase here, except that the English translation of it is “I don’t remember how to say it”. If you really want a translation of “I don’t remember how to say what” you would get “Jag kommer inte ihåg hur man säger ‘vad’” in Swedish (or even “Jag kommer inte ihåg hur man säger ‘what’”)…

• “And I don’t remember how to say what” (“Och jag kommer inte ihåg hur man säger det”): Well, same answer as the previous one. “What” isn’t “Det”. Period.

• “How I come” (“Hur jag kommer”): A longer phrase is needed here, as this is ONLY true in a subclause. If this isn’t a subclause the English “How I come” is “Hur kommer jag…?” in Swedish, as it has to be the starting part of a question and thus needs to follow the V2 rule.

• “So I can how to say” (“Så att jag kan hur man säger”): No way. Never. If this is the kind of “Swedish” you want to teach I don’t want to try speaking Swedish to those poor sods who try learning through the course. This isn’t even Swedish. At best it’s Swedish words on English grammar, but not even that would be true as that would give a more Swedish phrase than this one…
  If you really want a translation of “so I can how to say” you need “så jag kan, hur säger man, …”, which is a phrase that someone might say if they wanted to say “så jag kan dammsuga” (so I can hover) but forgot the word “dammsuga” and needed a few seconds to remember the word.
  What I really think that you’re trying to teach here is the Swedish phrase “så jag vet hur man säger”, which is “so I know how to say”. This is a useful phrase - but please use the real one instead of that terrible one you gave me…

• “How I don’t care” (“Hur jag bryr mig inte”): Never. Syntax error. V2 failure. The Swedish phrase has to be “Hur jag inte bryr mig” (statement) due to the V2 rule and the way “inte” has to move around due to that rule. If you want it as a question you need “Hur kommer det sig att jag inte bryr mig?” (How come I don’t care?).

(more to come)

[martin-kahnberg]

(continued from last post)

• “I don’t need to make” (“Jag behöver inte att göra”): What? You didn’t need to make a not? This Swedish chunk is really hard to understand, and the only way to understand it is to think of “inte” as something you would try to create, i.e. I don’t need to create a not (“not”, not “knot”).
  I think that you’re actually wanting to teach “Jag behöver inte göra” (which is “I don’t need to do/make/create”). Having learnt it all the opposite way I’ve been taught that Swedish “behöver” is “need” if followed by a noun and “need to” if followed by a verb in English, and knowing that most English “-ing” verbs correspond to verb-nouns in Welsh I realise that the rule really works when seeing -ing words as nouns instead of verbs. In Swedish basic verbs sometimes use the verbal particle “att” (as in “att göra” - to do / to make), but most of the times the basic verbs appear without the verbal particle. I’m not sure if there really is a rule - the “Swedish university grammar” book says that there isn’t.

• “And I am” (“Och jag är”): Nothing wrong with this chunk, except that the male voice is drunk and says “euör” which sounds very odd coming from that voice. You might hear something like that (with a throat-r at the end) in southernmost Sweden, but then you would have “ao iaöu aäeör” as the total chunk.

• “Really enough” (“Jätte tillräckligt”):

• “Really enough” (“Jätte tillräckligt med”): Hopefully these two don’t exist anymore… I must’ve had them when the new patch was about to come live. Anyway - please check that they’re gone. “Verkligen tillräckligt”, “Verkligen tillräckligt med” and “Verkligen tillräckligt många” would all work - but “jätte” (giant) can’t be used here at all.

• “Really enough words” (“Jätte tillräckligt med ord”): Please tell me that this giant was killed in the patch today, even though I was given this one after the patch was live…

• “Enough words” (“Tillräckligt ord”): This is actually incorrect. If you want the Swedish chunk “tillräckligt ord” you need “ett” infront (i.e. “ett tillräckligt ord”), but in that case it would be “word” (not “words”) in English, e.g. “ett tillräckligt starkt ord” “a word strong enough”.
  (A while later I was given the two correct versions “Tillräckligt med ord” and “Tillräckligt många ord”, so save the “Enough words” until you’ve taught “Enough” as “Tillräckligt med”.)

• “I don’t care about making” (“Jag bryr mig inte om att göra”): If you want the Swedish phrase to be consistent with the English meaning you need to make sure that the voices don’t stress “om”. If they stress “om” (through force or higher pitch) they say “I don’t bother to make” / “I don’t bother making” / “I can’t be bothered to create”, as the two phrases are identical in Swedish writing (but very different when spoken due to the tonality of the Swedish language). The best part of SSi is that it can actually teach pitch differences in a way that written courses never manage - so I really hope that you manage to get native Swedes to read all the phrases for the real course.

• “I don’t need about making mistakes” (“Jag behöver inte för att göra fel”): Ok, so you need “not” in order to make errors? At least that’s what the Swedish phrase says. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, as the English phrase doesn’t make any sense to me… The translation of the Swedish phrase is something like “I need a nothing in order to make an error” or “I need a nothing in order to create an error”. I can’t figure out what the “about” is supposed to do in the English version.

• “And I’m really tired” (“Och jag är jätte trött”): Another giant… This really had to be after the patch was live, so please check that this giant doesn’t exist anymore. “Really tired” is “verkligen trött” or “jättetrött” in Swedish (“jättetrött” as one word, not two words as in “jätte trött”). I’m really tired of this tired giant. (Jag är jättetrött på denne trötte jätte!)

• “How I can’t” (“Hur jag kan inte”): No. Never. V2 failure. Syntax error. “How I can’t” (as a subclause statement) is “hur jag inte kan” in Swedish, and “How I can’t” as a question starter is “Hur kan jag inte…?” in Swedish. There are no other possibilities. Either “hur” is the head of the subclause, or the head of the question. The version you wanted to teach doesn’t exist (except when non-native Swedes translate into Swedish from English), because it breaks the only grammar rule that really works in the Swedish language.

• “Enough now” (“Tillräckligt med nu”): What??? This chunk is impossible in Swedish. It simply can’t exist, because we can’t combine those words that way.

• “But how do you feel” (“Men hur mår du”): No, unless you add something specific after this chunk the Swedish chunk is “Men hur känner du dig?” or “Men hur känns det?”. The Swedish “Men hur mår du?” is “But how are you?” in English.

• “You will remember easily now” (“Du kommer att komma ihåg lätt nu”): I think I’ve commented on this one earlier… If you really need to keep this chunk you need to understand that the Swedish chunk means “You will remember the word “Easy” now”. If you want the Swedish phrase to equal the English “You will remember easily now” you need “Du kommer lätt komma ihåg nu” or “Nu kommer du lätt komma ihåg” or possibly “Du kommer att lätt komma ihåg nu” (though that last one sounds really clumsy). I’m sorry to pinpoint it, but Swedish has some interesting peculiarities when it comes to word order. Stockholm Swedish is V2 defaulting to SVO, whereas many regional versions along the westcoast are V2 defaulting to OVS - but every kind of Swedish is V2, and V2 enforces splitting words like “lätt” and “nu” when both words are adverbials.

• “I can’t many” (“Jag kan inte många”):

• “But I can’t many” (“Men jag kan inte många”): I’ve been trying to think of every case when I would say “Jag kan inte många…” in Swedish, and they all translate as “I don’t know many” in English. If you want something Swedish that comes close to “I can’t many” in English you would need “Jag kan inte göra många”.

• “I think now” (“Jag tycker nu”): Well, this is a useless chunk in Swedish, as you can’t say “Jag tycker nu” - you need something between “tycker” and “nu”. And - the English “I think now” is “Jag tänker nu” in Swedish (a chunk that actually exists and works). Don’t make things more complicated than they need be by adding chunks that make no sense.

• “Do you feel right now” (“Mår du just nu”): Ok, the only way you can actually use the Swedish chunk is if you have “hur” at the start (i.e. “How are you right now”). “Do you feel right now” is “Känner du just nu…?” in Swedish, which is a proper question starter (but can’t ever be used in a statement, so you might just as well add the questionmark at the end). By using “Do you feel right now” as “Känner du just nu?” you have every possibilitity later on, e.g. “Do you feel exited right now?” (“Känner du dig upphetsad just nu?”), “Do you feel the exitement right now?” (“Känner du upphetsningen just nu?”) or “Do you feel good right now?” (“Känner du dig bra just nu?”). By trying to enforce the incorrect link between “feel” and “må” the first two examples don’t work, because you can’t say “Mår du upphetsningen just nu?” or “Mår du upphetsad just nu?” in Swedish. Keep things simple and correct, instead of teaching incorrect things.

(more to come)

[martin-kahnberg]

(continued from last post)

• “Different” (“Olika”):

• “And different” (“Och olika”): Well… As one out of three, yes… “Different” is “olik”, “olikt” or “olika” depending on the noun it’s used with, e.g. “That language is so different from Swedish” (“Det språket är så olikt svenska”) or “That man is so different from my husband” (“Den mannen är så olik min man”) and “Those men are so different from my husband” (“De männen är så olika min man”). I understand why you choose “olika” (the plural form) as that one is the same for every plural noun, but it might be useful to mention the other versions fairly close to this one (just like you did with the different versions of “enough”).

• “Enough different” (“Tillräckligt många olika”): Well… That version exists, but it’s far less common than the usual “tillräckligt olik” - and also less common than “tillräckligt olika”. The problem (from your side, I guess) is that “tillräckligt olik” and “tillräckligt olika” could be rendered as “different enough” if translated the other way around, whereas “tillräckligt många olika” can’t. If you add some plural noun after different the chunk would work - as it is I would say that it’s likely to cause problems later on.

• “I can’t different” (“Jag kan inte olika”): No. If you want “I can’t different” you need “jag kan inte göra olika” in Swedish. If you want the Swedish “Jag kan inte olika…” you need to use “I don’t know different” in English. Yes - it complicates things, but “kan” is one of the most complicated Swedish verbs (far more complex than English “do”).

• “But I can’t different” (“Men jag kan inte olika”): Same as above. “But I don’t know different” in English or “Men jag kan inte göra olika” in Swedish.

• “I can’t enough” (“Jag kan inte tillräckligt många”): No. “I can’t enough” is “jag kan inte göra tillräckligt” or “jag kan inte göra tillräckligt många” in Swedish. If you only want the Swedish “Jag kan inte tillräckligt många” you need “I don’t know enough” in English.

• “How I can’t” (“Hur jag kan inte”): No. Syntax error. This isn’t Swedish, and can never be. V2 failure. English “How I can’t” (as statement) has to be “hur jag inte kan” in Swedish (because it can only occur at the start of a subclause if it’s a statement). English “How I can’t…?” (as a question starter) is “Hur kan jag inte…?” in Swedish. Please don’t teach incorrect stuff if you’re claiming to teach Swedish. Would you want a course to teach people to say “I how can’t” or “I not how can” as correct English?

• “I think good” (“Jag tycker bra”): Never. This is incorrect in every possible way. If you want the “tycker” version of “think” the Swedish HAS to be “Bra tycker jag”. The correct standard translation of “I think good” is “Jag tänker bra”. Sorry.

• “Yet” (“Än”): No, this will only cause trouble later on. “Än” is a common Swedish word, but it translates to English “than” 99% of the times. “Yet” is “ännu”, “ändå” or “fortfarande”.

• “Many yet” (“Många än”): No way. You can’t even say that in Swedish. “Many yet” could be “Många ännu” in Swedish, but most Swedes would most likely translate “Many yet” as “fortfarande många”.

• “Different yet” (“Olika än”): No - Swedish “olika än” is “different than” in English, e.g. “De är olika än de andra” (“They are different than the others”). English “different yet” is “ännu olika” or “fortfarande olika”, or possibly “olika ändå” depending on the context. Another possible translation is “ännu mer olika” / “ännu olikare” (as in “more different yet”).

• “Enough yet” (“Tillräckligt många än”): No. “Tillräckligt många ännu”, “Tillräckligt många ändå” or “Fortfarande tillräckligt många”. You simply can’t use “Tillräckligt många än” in Swedish.

• “I can’t yet” (“Jag kan inte än”): No. This has to be “Jag kan inte ännu” or “Jag kan fortfarande inte” in Swedish. It might also be “Jag kan det inte ännu” or “Jag kan det fortfarande inte”, but that’s more of “I can’t do it yet”.

• “But I can’t many” (“Men jag kan inte många”): Well, you need to make up your minds. Either you have “Men jag kan inte göra många” in Swedish or “But I don’t know many” in English. Given that you’re trying to teach “Men jag kan inte många ord” you ought to stick to “But I don’t know many” in English, even though that can be translated as “Men jag vet inte många” in Swedish.

• “I don’t know enough” (“Jag kan inte tillräckligt många”): Definitely ok, as is “Jag vet inte tillräckligt många”. However I would say that most Swedes would use “Jag kan inte tillräckligt” or “Jag vet inte tillräckligt” as their default translation of “I don’t know enough”. The translation would depend on what’s coming after “enough”.

• “I don’t know enough different” (“Jag kan inte tillräckligt många olika”): Yes, this chunk works. Some would prefer “Jag vet inte tillräckligt många olika” or “Jag känner inte till tillräckligt många olika”, but that info’s more if you need to modify some chunks later on.

• “I don’t know enough yet” (“Jag kan inte tillräckligt många än”):

• “And I don’t know enough yet” (“Och jag kan inte tillräckligt många än”): No, these ones don’t work. “I don’t know enough yet” as a chunk on its own will always be “Jag vet inte tillräckligt ännu” / “Jag kan inte tillräckligt ännu” or “Jag vet fortfarande inte tillräckligt” / “Jag kan fortfarande inte tillräckligt”. (The “and” at the start doesn’t change anything, neither in English nor in Swedish.)
  If you want a translation of the weird Swedish “Jag kan inte tillräckligt många än” you would get “I don’t know enough of thans” which sounds just as weird as the Swedish chunk does…

• “How enough” (“Hur tillräckligt många”): No. Remove this one. You simply can’t combine “Hur” and “tillräckligt många” next to each other in Swedish.

• “And I think it’s good” (“Och jag tycker att det är bra”): Ouch… This isn’t really that good a chunk… As it is the Swedish chunk has to be “Och det tycker jag är bra” or “Och jag tänker att det är bra”. The problem is that if you go with the “tycker” version the Swedish chunk would change if you added a subclause after “good”, e.g. “And I think it’s good that…” (“Och jag tycker det är bra att” / “Och jag tänker att det är bra att”). So the “tänker” version stays the same (it’s a proper chunk), whereas the “tycker” version will change quite a bit in different ways depending on what it contains.

• “I don’t know enough different words yet” (“Jag kan inte tillräckligt många olika ord än”):

• “And I don’t know enough different words yet” (“Och jag kan inte tillräckligt många olika ord än”):

• “But I don’t know enough different words yet” (“Men jag kan inte tillräckligt många olika ord än”): Combining these three, as they’re similar… If you listen to the rendered voices, they both have a gap before “än” - and that’s correct. “Än” is “than” here, not “yet”. The Swedish phrases can be
  “Men jag kan inte tillräckligt många ord ännu”
  “Men jag kan fortfarande inte tillräckligt många ord”
  “Men ännu kan jag inte tillräckligt många ord”
  “Men fortfarande kan jag inte tillräckligt många ord”
  You could use “tillräckligt med” instead of “tillräckligt många” in any of them without any problems, but you can’t use “än”.

• “How I don’t know enough words yet” (“Hur jag kan inte tillräckligt många ord än”): This one has the same problem with “än” as the phrases above (it needs to be “ännu” or “fortfarande”), but it also sufferes from syntax error and V2 failure. This one has to be
  “Hur kan jag inte tillräckligt med ord ännu?” (question)
  “hur jag inte kan tillräckligt med ord ännu” (subclause statement)
  “hur jag fortfarande inte kan tillräckligt med ord” (subclause statement)
  As a question it could also be “Hur kommer det sig att jag fortfarande inte kan tillräckligt med ord?” (“How come I don’t know enough words yet?” / “How come I still don’t know enough words?”).
  Given that the subclause statements are quite complicated and uncommon I would suggest using this phrase in its question version only, and really add the questionmark at the end (because that questionmark is important in Swedish).

• “But what” (“Men det”): As stated earlier, “what” is “vad” in Swedish and “But what” is “Men vad” in Swedish. The female voice obviously realises this, because it sounds terrible…

• “I really wanted to ask you something” (“Jag ville jätte fråga dig något”): Ok, this one must’ve remained in the update. This isn’t Swedish. It’s not even childish. It’s just crap. Nonsense. Kill this frippin’ giant, and replace him with “verkligen”. “Jag ville verkligen fråga dig något” is “I really wanted to ask you something”, whereas “Jag ville jätte fråga dig något” is “I wanted to ask you something, giant”.

• “And yet” (“Och än”): No. This has to be “Och ännu”, “Och ändå” or “Och fortfarande” (partly depending on what follows). E.g. “Och ännu en gång” (And yet again), “Och ändå kom hon” (And yet she came), “Och fortfarande spelas musiken” (And yet/still the music is played), “Och ändå spelas musiken” (And yet/nonetheless the music is played), “Och ändå spelas musiken fortfarande” (And yet/nonetheless the music is still played), “Och ännu lyser solen” (And yet/still the sun shines).

• “Or I need” (“Eller jag behöver”): Syntax error. This one can’t be Swedish, because it’s completely broken. “Or I need” is “Eller så behöver jag” in Swedish, and there’s no other way to phrase the Swedish version. V2 subclause rule.

• “Say now” (“Säga nu”): No. On its own this chunk is “Säg nu” in Swedish (imperative). “Now” tends to cause the Swedish version to use the imperative when the chunks are this short, and there’s no way around that fact. The only way to keep the imperative out of the way is to use longer chunks e.g. “Kan du säga nu istället för sen?” (Could you say “now” instead of “later”?) or “Det kan jag säga nu” (Now it’s ok for me to say it). Like it or not - but please don’t try changing the Swedish language just because you find the verb concept complicated. (I’ve managed to embrace the Welsh verb-noun concept and the Welsh wedi state modifier, because I didn’t want to forch the Welsh language to change to fit my ideas. I hope you will honour the Swedish language the same way.)

• “Can you now” (“Kan du nu”): This chunk isn’t good. If you add anything at all to the Swedish chunk it will split, e.g. “Kan du inte nu?” (Doesn’t now suite you?) or “Kan du gå nu?” (Can you now walk?" / Are you able to walk now?). It doesn’t really add anything to the course, so it can safely be removed.

• “I can how to say” (“Jag kan hur man säger”): Yuck! This isn’t Swedish. It has to be either “Jag vet hur man säger” (I know how to say) or possibly “Jag kan, hur säger man, …” (I can, whatsitcalled, …). Sorry.

• “You wanted with” (“Du ville med”): I’m pretty sure I’ve commented on this one earlier, but I can’t find it… The Swedish “Du ville med” means “You wanted to join” / “You wanted to join me”. I know it doesn’t suite you, but I can’t change the Swedish language. “Med” is a tricky Swedish word, simply because it can be either a verbal particle (as in “följa med” - to join) or a preposition (with). I’m pretty sure you’ll all say that “Hang you with to the party with me?” sounds a bit odd in English, but it’s simply a word-by-word translation from Swedish (“Hänger du med till partyt med mig?”). This is more or less the kind of Swedish you’re trying to teach with these short chunks where the Swedish phrases actually means something completely different (Swedish “annat”) than (Swedish “än”) what (Swedish “vad”) you (Swedish “du”) think (Swedish “tror”).

• “Say that” (“Säga det där”): Well, this is a step in the right direction - but unfortunately this short chunk would prompt a Swedish imperative so that the Swedish chunk has to be “Säg det där”. Sorry.

• “Can you that” (“Kan du det där”): Well, I won’t comment on the English here even though it sounds odd to me. The important thing here is that the Swedish chunk needs a questionmark at the end (“Kan du det där?”), because it’s not a chunk but a full question that can’t be added to. The questionmark causes tonal changes that are important to the language and the understanding of the phrase, and there’s no use not adding it as the chunk can’t be extended in any way.

• “Can you say that” (“Kan du säga det där”): This one is trickier. Either it’s a full question “Kan du säga det där?” that can’t be extended - or it’s a question starter. If it’s a question starter the Swedish has to be “Kan du säga att…?”, e.g. “Kan du säga att du är en duktig arbetare?” (Can you say that you’re a skilled worker?) or “Kan du säga att svenska är lätt?” (Can you say that Swedish is easy?). The questionmark is needed at the end regardless of which version you want, but if it’s the question starter you also need the … between “att” and the questionmark. I guess many of the learners won’t read the Swedish prompts anyway, but when you ask people to record the phrases the questionmarks and … will be extremely important (or you might get a phrase that you don’t want).

• “So I can some words” (“Så att jag kan några ord”): Well, not really. “So I can some words” is “Så jag kan några ord” in Swedish, and “Så att jag kan några ord” is “So that I can some words” in English. Make up your mind which version you want, but please don’t mix them like this. If I’m confused I’m pretty sure some of the learners will be as well.

• “Say again” (“Säga igen”): No. Again the imperative strikes the short chunk. “Say again” is “Säg igen” or “Säg det igen” in Swedish. You need “To say again” in order to get “Säga igen” or “Att säga igen” in Swedish.

• “Can you again” (“Kan du igen”): This is a bad chunk, because the Swedish chunk (which is a question starter) can’t be used without splitting. Just remove it, so that it doesn’t cause trouble.

• “Say a bit” (“Säga lite”): Again the imperative comes in the way… “Say a bit” is “Säg en bit” in Swedish. Adding “to” won’t solve the problem, as “a bit” won’t change to “lite” until you add “of” after “a bit”. “A bit of” is “lite” (or “en bit av”), “a bit” is “en bit”. It might be wise to remove it.

• “Again a bit” (“Igen lite”): No. This is incorrect Swedish, and it doesn’t even work as a chunk because you can’t have “lite” following “igen”. I know you’ll say that it does in the longer phrase “Kan du säga det igen lite långsammare”, but it doesn’t. That longer phrase is incorrect, as it has to be “Kan du säga det igen, lite långsammare?” or “Kan du säga det igen? Lite långsammare?”. If you use the combined phrase “Kan du säga det igen, lite långsammare” the “igen” is the final word of the main clause, and “lite” is the first word of the apposition. I need to go into the details here, because this is important to understand if you’re building a course teaching Swedish. What you try doing here is the same as claiming that “too why” is a valid English chunk, used in the phrase “Are you coming too? Why?”. Swedish has ways of combining phrases that English seldom uses, but that doesn’t make the two neighbouring words part of the same phrase any more than “too why” would be a common chunk in English. So just remove the “again a bit” chunk, because it’s simply incorrect.

• “Can you a bit” (“Kan du lite”): I’m struggling to find the use of this, but I guess you’re going for “Kan du lite svenska?”. In that case I would actually change the English into “Do you know a bit of” (which is “Kan du lite…?” in Swedish) in order to fit the full phrase “Do you know a bit of Swedish” (“Kan du lite svenska?”).

• “That a bit” (“Det där lite”): No. This isn’t correct at all. “That a bit” is “att en bit” or “att lite” in Swedish. “Det där lite” isn’t a possible chunk in Swedish, due to the V2 rule and the apposition clauses. “… det där, lite” is possible, but it’s still not a valid chunk because the words are parts of different clauses.

• “Can you say that a bit” (“Kan du säga det där lite”): Well… No. I know that you think that you get it when you add “långsammare” to the Swedish chunk, but this chunk is “Kan du säga att en bit” in Swedish. There’s no way it can be “Kan du säga det där lite” without “långsammare” at the end, because “det där lite” isn’t a valid combination in Swedish. Sorry. I know you want to build phrases using chunks, but please use proper chunks that actually work when you do. This one won’t get you where you want to go.

• “That again” (“Det där igen”): Well, it works. The problem is that this chunk might as well be “att igen” in Swedish, and both version would be equally valid. The important part to understand as a learner is that “att igen” has a very different meaning to “det där igen” despite both of them translating to “that again” in English. “Det där igen” might be a slightly more valid chunk as “att igen” would split when used ("att … igen).

• “Say slower” (“Säga långsammare”): The imperative hits again. “Say slower” is “Säg långsammare” (Say the word “långsammare”) or “Säg det långsammare” (Say it slower) in Swedish. You need something longer, e.g. “Kan du säga långsammare?” (Are you able to say the word “långsammare”?) or “Jag vill säga långsammare på tyska” (I want to say the word “slower” in German). It still won’t include the “say slower” chunk in English, because “say slower” is “Säg långsammare” in Swedish.

• “Again slower” (“Igen långsammare”): No. This isn’t a valid chunk. I know you can say “slower again” (“ännu långsammare” in Swedish) in English, but the Swedish chunk “långsammare igen” is more of “again it’s slowing down” referring to the process of slowing down. The Swedish “igen långsammare” is really “igen, långsammare”, and the two words belong to different clauses - thus they can’t form a chunk. I’ll give you a deeper grammar explanation if you want me to, but that one will be complicated because the rule is quite complicated.

• “Can you slower” (“Kan du långsammare”): Well, the Swedish question works if you add the questionmark at the end. It’s no chunk - it’s a full phrase (a complete question) that can’t be extended except by inserting “ännu”, i.e. “Kan du ännu långsammare?” (Are you able to do it slower yet?)" The problem for me is the English here, because the Swedish phrase really means “Are you able to do it slower?” / “Can you do it slower?” - i.e. I really want to have “do” in the English version. I guess you have a reason to keep it as “Can you slower”, but I’m not sure that “Can you slower?” is the same as “Are you able to do it slower?”. I leave that to you native English speakers.

• “That slower” (“Det där långsammare”): No. “That slower” as a chunk is “att långsammare” in Swedish, e.g. “Han insåg, att långsammare bilar körde till höger på vägen” (He realised, that slower cars were keeping to the right side of the road). Of course you can have “Det där” and “långsammare” in the same phrase, but they can’t be next to each other. If you want “Kan du säga det där, långsammare?” (Are you able to say that slower?) you get stuck in the apposition trap again in Swedish. If you want to have “det där långsammare” in that order and without any other words in-between, then “långsammare” will be an apposition clause and not part of the clause that “det där” is a part of. Thus they can’t form a chunk in Swedish even though they can in English.

• “Can you say that again a bit slower” (“Kan du säga det igen lite långsammare”): Yes, the Swedish phrase is almost correct. You need to add the comma after “igen”, and you need to have the question mark at the end - (“Kan du säga det igen, lite långsammare?”). The other version is “Kan du säga det igen? Lite långsammare?”. Any would work, but the way it is it isn’t correct. The way you decide to do it will impact the way it’s spoken.

• “Say that again a bit slower” (“Säga det igen lite långsammare”): Well, the imperative fooled you again. “Say that again a bit slower” is “Säg det igen, lite långsammare.” in Swedish. There’s only one other option, and that is “Säg det igen! Lite långsammare!”. The two imperative versions are equal in meaning, but the intonation will differ between them when spoken. “Säga det igen lite långsammare” is simply incorrect in Swedish. (Yes, we do have a word for that kind of Swedish, but I won’t use that word here.)

• “Sure” (“Säker på”): Well - “sure that” is “säker på att” and “sure of that” / “sure of it” is “säker på det”. The problem is that “Sure” is “säker” most of the time in Swedish, and that Swedish “säker” can be “safe” in English as well… But “säker på” can be “safe at”, “safe in” or “safe on top of” as well, e.g. “Jag är säker på banken” (I’m safe in the bank), “Jag är säker på taket” (I’m safe on the roof), “Jag är säker på sjukhuset” (I’m safe at the hospital). This is the problem with too short chunks - they might back-fire. I’d say it’s better to use “säker” for English “sure”, especially given all the trouble that “säker på” gives in the coming chunks.

• “I am sure” (“Jag är säker på”): No. “I’m sure” is “Jag är säker” in Swedish. “Jag är säker på” is “I’m safe at/on/in”.

• “Are you sure” (“Är du säker på”): No. “Are you sure” as a stand-alone chunk is always “Är du säker?” in Swedish. “Är du säker på…?” will usually render a Swede to think of “Will you be safe at/on/in … ?” when translating into English.

• “I am not sure” (“Jag är inte säker på”): No. “I’m not sure” is “Jag är inte säker” in Swedish. You need to extend it in order to cause the adding of “på” if needed in Swedish.

• “Are you sure that” (“Är du säker på att”): Yes, this one is actually correct. There’s no other possible Swedish version here - the only differences you might find in the Swedish translations of “Are you sure that” would be where the comma was placed (if used at all), as both “Är du säker, på att…?” and “Är du säker på, att…?” are correct in Swedish.

• “I remember what” (“Jag kommer ihåg det”): No. This isn’t correct. The Swedish is correct, but it means “I remember it” and nothing else. This must be an AI rendered English phrase from an incorrect Swedish parsing. “I remember what” is “Jag kommer ihåg, vad” in Swedish.

• “I practice now” (“Jag öva på nu”): What? Never. Syntax error. Crash. “I practice now” is “Jag övar nu” (note the r, which is very important). The Swedish “Jag övar på nu” (not the r) is “I keep on practicing now”. “Jag öva på nu” is impossible. It’s not Swedish.

• “Help” (“Hjälpa”): Well, it can be. Usually “help” is “hjälp” (either as the imperative verb or as the noun - they’re both “hjälp” in Swedish). It might be better to introduce it as “to help” (“att hjälpa”), because that’s never incorrect.

• “What to say” (“det säga”): What??? Who taught you that? I can’t think of any situation where you can have “det” next to “säga” in Swedish, and definitely no version where the English “what to say” would be “det säga” in Swedish. “What to say” is “Vad ska man säga?” in Swedish (if a stand-alone question) and “vad man ska säga” or “vad man kan säga” as a subclause statement (e.g. “I don’t know what to say” - “Jag vet inte, vad man ska säga” / “Jag vet inte, vad man kan säga”). Sorry, but this has to be changed.

• “I practice to say” (“Jag öva på att prata”): Well, the English part is a bit odd - but that’s the kind of English you use all the time. The Swedish is incorrect, and that’s the important part here. It has to be “Jag övar på att prata” (note the r), which is “I practise saying/speaking/talking” in English. This is a good example where Swedish has “att” even though English has “-ing”. If you had taught this through Welsh there wouldn’t have been any trouble - Dwi’n 'marfer siarad… Fix the Swedish error, and then it’s up to you if you want to do something with the English part…

• “I don’t need about” (“Jag behöver inte för”): I’m not sure I understand what you’re aiming at here… The Swedish chunk means “I don’t need (the word) “for”.”. I guess you might be aiming at “Jag behöver inte, för att…” (I don’t need to, because…). I don’t understand what “about” is doing there in the English chunk. Either fix this one so that it makes sense, or remove it. It’s rubbish the way it is right now.

• “I’m not sure if I can help you” (“Jag är inte säker på om jag kan hjälpa dig”):

• “I’m not sure if I can help you now” (“Jag är inte säker på om jag kan hjälpa dig nu”): Combining these two, as they share the same error. The Swedish should be “Jag är inte säker på att jag kan hjälpa dig (nu)”. If you’ve found texts having “om” in this Swedish phrase those texts are either translationeese (translation mistakes) or written by non-native Swedes. I leave it up to you to decide if the English needs to change when the Swedish does (“I’m not sure that I can help you (now)” if you change it), and I’m not sure if those two versions are equal or equally correct in English.

• “Are you sure if you can help me?” (“Är du säker på om du kan hjälpa mig?”): Again the Swedish needs changing. It has to be “Är du säker på att du kan hjälpa mig?”. I’m pretty sure that you want to change the English into “Are you sure that you can help me?” as well.

• “I don’t remember what I wanted to say” (“Jag kommer inte ihåg det jag ville säga”): No. This isn’t Swedish. The Swedish has to be “Jag kommer inte ihåg vad jag ville säga”. There’s no other option, unless you want to replace “kommer inte ihåg” with “minns inte” or “hågar inte”…

• “I practice speaking now” (“Jag öva på att prata nu”): Again the missing r? This isn’t just a spelling mistake - it makes the whole sentense non-grammatic (I to practice to speaking now). It has to be changed to “Jag övar på att prata nu” or “Nu övar jag på att prata” (both equally correct).
  (Sure - “Jag öva på att prata” could be regional for “I practiced speaking”, but you can’t add “nu” to a past tense sentence in Swedish - and you’re not trying to teach regional Swedish anyway.)

• “To learn” (“Att lära sig”): Finally! Why not start with this one (the basic one), instead of hiding it 10 hours into the course?

• “I speak more” (“Jag prata mer”): Another missing r. This has to be “Jag pratar mer” (note the r), unless you think that “I to speak more” is the usual way of saying something in English (but in that case you need to change the English into that version). “Jag prata mer” means “I spoke more” regionally, but in standard Swedish it’s simply incorrect.

• “I don’t need mistakes” (“Jag behöver inte fel”): Well, this is actually incorrect grammar in Swedish. “Jag behöver inga fel” is the correct version, but that is “I don’t need any errors” in English. The only way to interpret “Jag behöver inte fel” is to interpret is as “I don’t need FEL” (and that “FEL” is the name of a person or a horse or something like that). The correct translation of “I don’t need mistakes” is “Jag behöver inte några misstag”.

• “Learning Swedish” (“Att lära sig svenska”): Yes! Finally! Thanks! But why save this? Or is it possible that this is one of the 1.1.0 changes that made it through into my last minutes (90 minutes after it was supposed to be live)?

• “And to learn” (“Och att lära sig”): Yes. This is correct. The only issue here is that the female voice uses Norwegian “og” instead of Swedish “och”.

• “If do you speak” (“Om pratar du”): What? Never. This has to be “om du pratar” in Swedish due to the V2 rule. It doesn’t matter that you use “do you speak” in the English chunk - it has to be “om du pratar” in the Swedish chunk due to V2.

(and that’s the end of today’s 3 hours of listening and 7 hours of explaining the errors)

[martin-kahnberg]

@RichardBuck

@martin-kahnberg

How I need

All these different, problematic chunks beginning with “Hur” are making me think of the similar patterns in the Portuguese, where there seem to be loads of perfectly valid sentences and chunks of sentences that get re-presented prefixed with como (“how”). I don’t have a detailed list like this, but it feels clunky and frequently stilted or unidiomatic; I’m not sure what the ‘how’ is meant to add to the sentences.

I haven’t learnt Portuguese, but based on the 3 years of Spanish lessons I had in school I would say that starting phrases with “como” won’t make any difference to Spanish phrases (and I guess it’s the same in Portuguese and Italian as well). In the Germanic languages a phrase that starts with that language’s version of “how” causes word order changes, and those word order changes can be different depending on whether the new phrase is a question or a subclause.
Swedish example:
Jag går inte hem nu (I go not home now - negative statement)
…, hur jag nu inte går hem (…, how I now not go home - negative subclause)
Hur går jag inte hem nu? (How go I not home now? - question)
The words remain exactly the same - but the word order has to change as an effect of “how”. In Swedish not only the word order changes, but also the pitch needed to convey the meaning has to change when “how” is added - and sometimes “how” can split or join words in ways that also has an effect on the pitch and stress patterns of those words.

I think that they’re trying to teach all languages using the same patterns (and that this is one of the reasons they are so reluctant to change certain errors in the Swedish course). The idea is good (because it will make it possible to learn Swedish through the medium of Portuguese in the end), but I think it’s important that they get the target language phrases correct as well - even if they seem to make things more complicated.

[martin-kahnberg]

A shorter bunch of phrases this time (as I don’t want to hit that 32k message limit again like I did yesterday):

• “And isn’t” (“Och är inte”): Well, this is quite interesting. You can say “och är” (“and is”), and you can say “men är inte” (“but isn’t”) - but you can’t say “och är inte” due to the V2 rule. This is a complex pattern requiring understanding of different kinds of conjunctions - but the main thing is that a subclause starting with “men” will need a different word order than a subclause starting with “och”, and that’s the reason why “men är inte” works while “och är inte” doesn’t. “och är inte” needs an object between “är” and “inte” - when you have “men är inte” that object goes between “men” and “är” and may be skipped. If you have “och är inte” there has to be an object between “är” and “inte”.

• “To learn now” (“Att lära sig nu”): Well - this isn’t incorrect. The funny thing is that this chunk is double in written Swedish. Either it’s “att LÄRA sig nu” (to LEARN now), or it means “att lära sig NU” (to learn the word “nu”). I don’t remember which voice was which, but the two voices used one meaning each (which made me smile).

• “Can you slower” (“Kan du långsammare”): Well, I commented on this one yesterday as well. I realised today that the Swedish chunk has yet another meaning to it. It can mean “Do you know the word ‘långsammare’?”… In Spoken Swedish the pitch would tell you which meaning the phrase had, but in writing there’s no way to indicate this.

• “I started last” (“Jag började förra”): Ok, this one obviously remained after the 1.1.0 patch. The Swedish is still incorrect unless you add another time noun (minuten, timmen, månaden, veckan, året, seklet)… On its own it must be “Jag började sist”, and that’s also the version you need if you want to say “I started last week of December” (“Jag började sista veckan i december”). The Swedish word “förra” means “previous” or “previously”, not “last”. If you change the English chunk to “I started previous” I won’t complain, because that would be “Jag började förra” in Swedish - as in “Jag började förra året” (I started previous year). The problem is that you’re trying to teach an incorrect link between English “last” and Swedish “förra” - a link that doesn’t exist (but seem to exist because in English you can use both “last year” and “previous year”).

• “Because I think” (“För att jag tycker”): Much better (so thanks for the 1.1.0 update). I wonder when I’ll be given the phrase where “think” has to be “tycker” - because the standard translation of “think” is “tänker” and the second most common is “tror”. Every example I’ve had this far either “tänker” or “tror” could’ve been used (or even both of them) - so why teach “tycker” as the basic version when it isn’t the most common one? But at least the “för att” (because) is a lot better than the previous version!

• “Is fun” (“Är kul”): Nothing wrong here, except that the female voice only says “kul” (fun).

• “But I don’t know enough” (“Men jag kan inte tillräckligt många”): Adding a thing that I forgot to write about these “I don’t know enough” chunks yesterday. “But I don’t know enough” is “Men jag vet inte tillräckligt” in everyday Swedish. The other versions could be ok with other chunks added, but “But I don’t know enough” is a stand-alone phrase as much as a chunk - and as a stand-alone phrase it is “Jag vet inte tillräckligt” or possibly “Jag kan inte tillräckligt” in Swedish.

• “How I don’t know enough different words yet” (“Hur jag kan inte tillräckligt många olika ord än”): Another “chunk” that need to be changed, because it’s not Swedish at all. Any of these would work:
  “Hur jag inte kan tillräckligt många olika ord ännu” (subclause statement)
  “Hur kan jag inte tillräckligt många olika ord ännu?” (question)
  “Hur jag fortfarande inte kan tillräckligt många olika ord” (subclause statement)
  “Hur kan jag fortfarande inte tillräckligt många olika ord?” (question)
  “Hur jag inte känner till tillräckligt många olika ord ännu” (subclause statement)
  “Hur känner jag fortfarande inte till tillräckligt många olika ord?” (question)

• “I’m sure that I can help” (“Jag är säker på att jag kan hjälpa”): I forgot to write yesterday that these phrases (when used on their own in Swedish) would be “Jag är säker på att jag kan hjälpa till”.

• “Really important” (“Jätte viktigt”):

• “It is really important” (“Det är jätte viktigt”): Guess I’ll need to go and get myself a gun and shoot this giant myself… IF you want to use “jätte-” as a strenghtening word it MUST be written as ONE WORD, joined to the adjective (“jätteviktigt”). There’s a major difference in tonal pitch and stress patterns between “jätteviktigt” (super-important) and “jätte viktigt” (a heavy giant)!!! If you’re teaching a language - FFS don’t teach the learners stuff that are completely wrong!!! Yes, this will make me angry soon. The only thing you show by keeping these “giant” phrases is that you don’t understand Swedish - and that’s not a good thing if you’re trying to teach the language that you don’t understand.

• “Take” (“Ta sig”):

• “To take” (“Att ta sig”):

• “And take” (“Och ta sig”): I’m quite interested in learning why you’ve decided to use this Swedish translation, as I can’t even think of a phrase where “take” would be “ta sig” ( = go to) in Swedish… English “take” is Swedish “ta”.

• “It is important to take” (“Det är viktigt att ta sig”): Ok??? This Swedish chunk is “It’s important to go” or “It’s important to reach”.

• “Take time” (“Ta sig tid”): Hmmm… “Take time” is “ta tid” in Swedish. Swedish “ta sig tid” is “to have the time” or “to enjoy (the) time”.

• “Take time now” (“Ta sig tid nu”): No. “Take time now” is “Ta tid nu” in Swedish. “Take the time now” is “Ta tiden nu”. “Enjoy the time now” would be “Ta dig tid nu!” (imperative, using “dig”). Swedish “Ta tid på dig!” (imperative) is “Take it easy” / “Be careful”, whereas “ta tid på dig” (statement or question) is “measure your time”.

• “And take time” (“Och ta sig tid”): No… “And take time” would be “Och ta tiden” in Swedish. Swedish “och ta sig tid” is “and have the time” as in “och ta sig tid att koppla av” (and have the time to relax).

• “Take now” (“Ta sig nu”): Absolutely not! You can’t even say “Ta sig nu!” in Swedish. English “Take now” is “Ta nu” in Swedish, but the Swedish “ta” is quite versatile and the chunk “ta nu” can be used in phrases like “Ta nu tiden på mig!” (Measure my time now!), “Ta nu med dig paketet!” (Now bring the parcel! / Don’t forget the parcel!), “Ta nu bilen!” (Use the car this time). If you want a reflexive version of “ta” you would get “Ta dig till huset nu!” (“Go to the house now”) or “Ta dig hem nu!” (“Go home now!”). How many examples did you find of “Take now”? None, because there’s no match.

• “Learn now” (“Lära sig nu”): Well, not really. This is an imperative in Swedish, so it will be “lär” (not “lära”). As an imperative it tends to be used with “du” (2nd person singular) or “er” (2nd person plural), so it will be “Lär dig nu” (singular) or “Lär er nu” (plural). If you want to avoid the imperative you need to make the chunk longer.

• “And learn” (“Och lära sig”): This one is ok, except that the male voice goes bananas at the end and adds “Va fan!”…

So, a shorter list this time - but at least now I know that I’m on 1.1.0. and that I need to get myself a gun.

[RichardBuck]

Actually, that makes a lot more sense now. I don’t speak any modern Scandinavian languages, but I have studied Old English and Old Norse, and learnt-but-forgotten Modern German, so although I haven’t come across the exact patterns you describe, it’s not wholly unfamiliar. (In Old English ‘when’ and ‘then’ are the same word, distinguished by the position of the verb in the clause that follows.) If adding ‘hur’ has all these ramifications in Swedish, that needs to be taught; whence all the added como sentences in Romance. Thank you!