Den Svensk Tråd

Baaaaah, try harder ;)
Swedish rules, and believe me, now that i'm back in France, it's actually harder for me to fight the system/administration in order to register into a Swedish course than it's going to be to keep learning the language itself.

And if works, i'll prolly get in a beginner's course... Gonna lose one year at least :Smug:
 
Zephyros said:
Excuse me for my behavior...
It's good to see that your learning Swedish..:headbang:
Correction: "Den är inte en Monty Python tråd...det är en SKIT TRÅD

Don't correct him if you don't even know how to write in your own language.
There is no space between SKIT and TRÅD!
 
Wow, very few Swedes in this thread seem to know very much about basic Swedish grammar. There are so many statements in this thread that make me very sad, but most are said over 6 months ago so I won't bother addressing them. One important thing though. Den/Det does indeed have to do with gender. Swedish used to have three genders; (which still survive in some dialects, like Smålandian) femininum, maskulinum and neutrum, but femininum and maskulinum were merged into "reale".
 
ok...the plot thickens...the gender thing was pretty obvious...it is gender related in most european languages.

here's a hard one
when is the en/ett used a prefix and when as a postfix?
for example: en skog or skogen and in plural skogar or skogarna

I know in general the difference between en/ett and den/det... it's basicly the difference between "a/an" and "the" in english but again how and when do I use the den/det as a postfix assuming it works the same way as en/ett?
 
En skog = A forest
Skogen = The forest
Skogar = Forests
Skogarna = The forests

In other words, putting en/et(t) after a word is the same as putting a "the" in front of a word in the English language.

Den/det means "it" literally, but it never means "the". You can for example never say "Den skog brinner.", you should just say "Skogen brinner." ("The forest is on fire.") You can refer to the forest by replacing it with den/det though, as it means "it". For example: "Jag ser en älg, den springer." ("I see a moose, it is running.")

EDIT: I am bullshitting you. Den/det can indeed mean "the" when put it in front of an adjective. For example: "Den snabba katten" ("The fast cat") or "Den svenska tråden" ("The Swedish thread")

The only time (EDIT: excluding the above case) you put den/det in front of a noun is when you want to specify exactly which <noun of your choice> it is.

Den skogen = That forest
Det huset = That house

You may add a "d&#228;r" after den/det if you wish, but it doesn't change the meaning in any way. "Den d&#228;r skogen" and "det d&#228;r huset" still just mean "that forest" and "that house" respectively. It is most commonly used when pointing at something or when you just want to buy some time figuring out the following words.

And no, it can't be made into a postfix.

Oh, and:

Denna = den h&#228;r = this
Detta = det h&#228;r = this
Dessa = de h&#228;r = these

However, there are some difference between the words, not when it comes to their meanings, but when it comes to grammar. "Denna", "detta" and "dessa" are much older ways of saying "this" and "these" than "den h&#228;r", "det h&#228;r" and "de h&#228;r", resulting in people generally following older grammatical rules when using them. If you use "den h&#228;r", "det h&#228;r" or "de h&#228;r" you always have to use the "en/et/<adequate plural postfix>" postfixes. You have to say "den h&#228;r skogen" and not "den h&#228;r skog".

However, when you use denna/detta/dessa, this is not the case. You can say both "detta hus" and "detta huset", the former being the older (and the most common, atleast where I live) usage (and the one that sounds better). In the case of "dessa", you always use the old way. For example, you never say "dessa stenarna", you say "dessa stenar" ("these stones").
 
I've always wanted to learn Swedish. It's too bad it looks ridiculously hard.

Here's a translated message. How off is it from the actual language?

Jag var vandrande ned g&#229;tan och fik angriper vid tokig mycket fet duva

(Translated from "I was walking down the street and got attacked by crazy obese pigeons")
 
Jag var vandrande ned gåtan och fik angriper vid tokig mycket fet duva

(Translated from "I was walking down the street and got attacked by crazy obese pigeons")

Jag vandrade ner för gatan och blev angripen av galna feta duvor.

That's more correct. :p
 
Jag var vandrande ned gåtan och fik angriper vid tokig mycket fet duva

(Translated from "I was walking down the street and got attacked by crazy obese pigeons")

Jag vandrade ner för gatan och blev angripen av galna feta duvor.

That's more correct. :p
Haha, damned translators. Couldn't trust them as far as they can be... thrown.

(I do realize that an internet program is probably quite difficult to physically throw.)

Wow, I sure do have some work to do. :erk:
 
Jag var vandrande ned gåtan och fik angriper vid tokig mycket fet duva

(Translated from "I was walking down the street and got attacked by crazy obese pigeons")

Jag vandrade ner för gatan och blev angripen av galna feta duvor.

That's more correct. :p
Now there's a really useful swedish sentence...
 
let's change the sentance a bit
Jag vandrade ner f&#246;r gatan och blev angripen av galna fittor :lol:

now that's a useful swedish sentence and it goes well with my sig
 
Your sig joke concept works, but a mouse isn't "bruten" until it's broken in two pieces (which would never happen). If just want to say that it doesn't work, you should say that it's "trasig" or "s&#246;nder".
 
To "väcka upp" means to wake up something, not just general awakening and the "upp" can be there but it isn't needed. If you want to say "Wake up!/Awaken!" you should use the verb "Vakna!".

It should be "Vakna för helsike!". I can't put my finger on why the "för" should be there, but it's essential.