Sorry Hannes, no new code yet. Instead I give you this brief explanation of Swedish grammar to confuse any non-swedish reader of this blog; if there are any. There is no apparent reason for this blog but as I finished the last book and was considering translating the title to English or not my mind took a small sidetrip comparing the Swedish language to the English language. Todays lesson will be about grammar, specifically third person pronouns and the use of the definite and the indefinite article in conjunction with these.

The gender specific third person pronouns he (han) or she (hon) are boringly straight forward but when we get to the third alternative; nouns of inderterminate gender it get’s more interesting or confusing depending on you outlook on life. For those who forgotten their basic grammar the third person singular pronoun of indeterminate gender is “it” (den, det). Did you see it? Huh, did you? Swedish has two third person pronouns of indeterminate gender. So how do you know which one to use? You don’t! Well, I’m lying, ’cause I know which one to use and I can hear when someone gets it wrong but I do not know the grammatical rule for when to use one or the other. If anyone knows then please post a comment explaining it. I think that most Swedes are unaware of the grammatical rule that states which one to use but almost all Swedes “knows” which one to use for a particular object. In fact it’s a common predjudice that foreigners or immigrants speaking Swedish often get this wrong.

Well I promised to confuse you with definite (the) and indefinite (a) articles as well. When we refer to an object as it we use “den” or “det” depending on the object. But when we refer to it as “the object” we put an ending on the word instead. Using definite article “the tree” becomes “trädet” and “the bush” becomes “busken“. And if we want to say “that tree” we say “det trädet” and for “that bush” it spells “den busken”. Do you see a pattern emerging? No? Ok, let’s move on to the indefinite article then. If I were to say “a tree” or “a bush” it would in Swedish become “ett träd” and “en buske“. So do you see the pattern now? You do? Great! :-)

So to recap; Swedes use two different pronouns of indeterminate gender for third person singular to replace the single english pronoun “it”. These are den or det. For words that are considered to be “den” we have add the indefinite article “en” before the word and without any inflection of the word. Instead we inflect the word with the ending “-en” when used as a definite article and when we want to speak of a particular instance we combine the basic pronoun with the definite inflection putting the pronoun in front; “den [x]-en“. We do the same with words that are of the “det” persuasion except that we use “ett [x]“, “[x]-et” and “det [x]-et” respectively. And we have know idea which rules determine whether an object is a den or a det. We go by sound, feeling and the ridicule of others should we get it wrong in order to determine which one to use. Simple, eh?

Shortly I’ll post a review of the book “Synden” - The Sin - which prompted the thoughts that led to this post.

6 Responses to “A brief confused lesson in Swedish”

Gravatar
Sweden

I love the fact that I already speak swedish. Japanese grammar is pure joy in comparison. :)

Gravatar
Sweden

Hehe! Some of the swedish adjectives also break the rules of ‘den’ and ‘det’! Try these for a change:

En tapir - En rädd tapir
En filbunke - En rädd filbunke
Ett lejon - Ett ? lejon

Gravatar
Sweden

Lions (lejon) doesn’t get scared (rädda) so I don’t see the problem. :-) But you are correct some adjectives doesn’t exist for both “den” and “det” so we would use a different adjective in Swedish- “ett skrämt lejon

And Mika please translate “filbunke” into english for us. ;-)

Gravatar
Sweden

From what I can remember from the Swedish lessons in school, there is no rule that can explain what words should be in reale (en) and neutrum (ett). It’s just a residue from some kind of older version of Swedish, where we also distinguished between feminine and masculine words (there are residues of this as well, clocks and boats are still referred to as “she”). I think it’s a sort of grammar that is common to all the Germanic languages.

And since “det rädda lejonet” works shouldn’t “ett rädd lejon” also be correct? I mean, that would prove that they do get scared. ;) Although I would personally prefer “ett räddt lejon” as in “ett absurdt grammatiskt problem” or possibly “ett rätt lejon” as in “ett solitt trästycke”. YMMV. :P

Gravatar
Sweden

I actually looked it up and it explicitly states that rädd doesn’t exist for third person singular of the neuter gender. They suggested fylld av rädsla (filled with fear) or förskräckt (terrified) instead.

Gravatar
Sweden

Really? Oh well. :) I guess that solves that problem.

Something to say?