Talk:Swedish grammar

message: I was thinking about "the passive voice", where an example of swedish is given. You can't say "han fick målat dörren". It should be something like "han fick dörren målad".
:It looks strange, quite colloquial. Nothing grammarians would prescribe. 惑乱 分からん 14:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and are these get-constructions really cases of passive voice. I wonder since it is not the subject ("he") that is painted in "He got the door painted" 83.227.33.85 (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive voice 

message: Something should be mentioned about the deponent verbs, as well as other rare, strange verb forms, such as the reciprocal tense...
:Of course, the article hasn't even mentioned about the passive voice, yet.
::Now the passive voice has been mentioned. :)   -- Steve Rapaport 10:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deponent verbs 

message: According to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veta, the past participle of the verb "veta" is "veten". Is this correct? As a native speaker, I must say it looks quite strange. 惑乱 分からん 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no past participle form of "veta". If there would be one it would be "vetad/vetat/vetade" since the supine is "vetat". This verb does not need a past participle since it is not used in constructions where you could have use for such a form. English sentences containing "is known" uses another verb than "veta" in Swedish, notably "känna (till)" 
85.8.0.197 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past Participle of verb "veta" 

message: I don't know Swedish, so I went here looking for a conjugational chart for the verb to be. The page doesn't have one, but I did find it over on Indo-European copula. It's probably a good thing to include, since most other language pages have one.
- Christopher 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vara ("to be") has now been added to the table of verb conjugations as an example of an irregular verb. –panda 22:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  include something about the verb to be 

message: "To write" is a bad example of a strong verb shared by Swedish, German, and English because the English word isn't actually related to Sw. skriva, G. schreiben. Changed to "to bite". Orcoteuthis (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the cognate in English is to scribe, which is a regular verb and has, as far as I can tell, always been regular in English, perhaps because it was formed as a denominalisation from the noun scribe, thus sharing a root with schreiben, skriva, Dutch schrijven, but bypassing the strong vowel mutation process in these languages altogether. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3167:66A1:1588:91FA (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanic Strong Verbs 

message: (reflexive) 	- 	sig 	sin/sitt/sina
Shouldn't there be a "en" where the dash is, or is it dialect? "En ska tvätta sig varje dag, annars luktar man illa." Mindcooler (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "En" as a pronoun is the object form of the pronoun "man" (translated as "you" or "one" in English, depending on variant and context, "on" in French). In dialects "en" is also used as the subject form. This example is inconsequent since it uses "en" as subject in the first clause but "man" in the second clause. In standard language one would say "Man ska tvätta sig varje dag, annars luktar man illa" ("One shall wash oneself every day, otherwise one will smell"). The reflexive form of "man" is "sig", as it is grammatically a third person, even if it is frequently used about the speaker himself. 83.227.33.85 (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this not be, "Man ska tvätta sig varje dag, annars luktar hon illa"? — Robert Greer (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, because that is a switch from 4th person to 3rd person and becomes a reference error, so that sentence is malformed in all possible interpretations and should require a prefixed * typical for such. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronouns 

message: I seem to remember reading that relative pronouns can be suppressed in Swedish in the same way as in English, or is that wrong? Please see Talk:Relative_clause#copyedit_necessary --Espoo (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  suppressed relative pronouns 

message: I don't know what the section Cardinal numbers is about, but it seems to be mostly about some non-grammar issue, such as what number standards Swedish follows. From Higher numbers include: most of the text treats long and short scales used, and so should be removed, except one example of a number composition, f.ex.: 100557 etthundratusen femhundrafemtisju etthundratusen femhundrafemtiosju. From The basic operations include: the content becomes weirdly irrelevant, what the h*ck has trivial arithmetics to do with Swedish Grammar?? A few samples of part numberings (rational numbers is a term of mathematics AFAIK) could be kept, but for the rest, the too numerous examples should be dropped. This is an encyclopedia. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Selective changes made accordingly. Feel very free to continue fixes/cleanups! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cardinal numbers 

message: As far as I can tell, we seem to have a problem here. For the singular reflexive personal pronouns, the article correctly lists sig, sin/sitt/sina as the forms, as in "Han tog av sig hatten" (lit. "He took off him-REFL hat-the") and "Han ägde sin bok" ("He owned his-REFL book"). And of course, this must be the case for plural forms as well: "De tog av sig hattarna" and "De ägde sin bok". So why does it say "(use de, dem, deras)"?? I would change this myself but don't know how to edit the table in this way. David ekstrand (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So now I've managed to edit the table to reflect this change. I also removed the part of fn. 1 which said that the non-genitive possessive personal pronouns agree with the item possessed in definiteness. They don't, as far as I can tell. Rather, the fact that a certain item is possessed triggers the definite form of the adjective: En grön bil vs. Kalles gröna bil. But you can't make a distinction between Min bil (my car) and *Den mina bilen (the car which is mine) which would involve making the possessive pronoun agree with the noun in definiteness. (FTR, "the car which is mine" would be Den bil som är min.) David ekstrand (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd person plural reflective

message: Again I read this statement in section Conjugating verbs that seems pretty dubious to me:
:As of lately, an increasing number verbs formerly conjugated with a strong inflection has been subject to be conjugated with its weak equivalent form in colloquial speech.
No!! I instead get an impression of status quo, although I may be affected by the local language habits of Northern Östergötland, where nonstandard forms such as spika/spek/spikit (instead of spika/spikade/spikat for v. "nail") occur. On the other hand, dö/dödde/dött (instead of dö/dog/dött for v. "die") also occur here. I've heard about this "strong verb weakening" before, but citation verily needed: I believe the statement is incorrect, unless someone provides a source. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Svenska Dagbladet: "Starka verbformer får lättare folkets kärlek" from 27 oktober 2008, slightly contradicts the thesis of strong verbs becoming weak. It instead claims that novel verbs are always weak, while some extablished weak verbs are tending towards strong. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weakening of verb?

message: I just made this edit. While both are used in spoken language, at least "dens" is never considered correct Swedish, but "våran/eran" might be accepted in some informal situations. That "dess" would be considered awkward seems to be an opinion. Sources are a huge problem here. It seems like a number of self proclaimed experts have put their own thoughts into this article. /Grillo (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dens/våran 

message: I've noticed this: "Certain nouns borrowed from Latin use Latin inflections, or Swedish inflections added to the root after removing the Latin singular ending, such as faktum, the plural of which is fakta." stated in the section about plural forms. Interestingly, facta is the plural form of factum in Latin, so I do not believe the "such as" is proper, having nothing uniquely Swedish about fakta being faktum's plural form.
Girondaniel (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: More clarified now! /--Danog-76 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural forms 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Swedish grammar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090411073610/http://hum.gu.se:80/institutioner/svenska-spraket/personal/sverk/Markeringgenus.pdf to http://hum.gu.se/institutioner/svenska-spraket/personal/sverk/Markeringgenus.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't this be added to the table for ease of reference? The usage warning can remain, but the pronoun is a fact. -- Evertype·✆ 14:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hen 

message: Would someone please explain (in the article) the difference between the supine form and the past participle? I'm learning Swedish and at this point, I think they're the same thing. DBlomgren (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally only Supine is of significance. But one could say past participle is a passive form of supine, that cannot be used with all verbs. One has to concider the helping verbs here. All verbs ,in a past tense, which is preceded by the words for have/has or had (as well as should) are supine. But if was/were precedes the verb, it's past participle. Examples: 
* Jag har flugit till Berlin <==> I have flown to Berlin (supine & kind of active)
* Jag blev flugen till Berlin <==> I was flown to Berlin (past participle & passive)
Past participle is rarely used. Past participle can't be used on all verbs - otherwise the significance can be absurd. Example:
* Jag har ätit <==> I have eaten (supine)
* Jag blev äten <==> I was eaten (past participle - and logically not possible to express if true... If being eaten, one hardly can talk about it afterwards...)
The most used past participle is when stung by a wasp or bee.
* Jag har stuckit mig på ett bi <==> I have stung myself on a bee (Supine - but in this case not optional Swedish, it's the bee that sticks and is active.)
* Jag blev stucken av ett bi <==> I was stung by a bee (past participle, a rare case when that works better than supine) Boeing720 (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between supine form and past participle 

message: These were all only written (if ever spoken generally, then centuries ago). They had nothing to do with the verb itself or stong or weak, just 1:st, 2:nd and 3:rd person plural. An "o" was added in the end of the verb's present tense. Example: 
singular, 1-3rd person of the verb "att vara" (to be)
* jag är  (I am)
* du är (you are)
* han/hon/den/det är (he/she/it is; though Swedish has two words for "it")
plural (old)
* vi äro (we are)
* ni äro (you are, more than one person)
* de äro (they are)
plural (modern)
* vi är (we are)
* ni är (you are, more than one person)
* de är (they are)
There is no difference between persons in the present tense. And this is the same for all verbs. Danish and most Norwegian dialects follow the same pattern. Boeing720 (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical plural forms (verbs) 

message: This sentence must have been written by a Swede: in English we would write: No scholar today considers... or more idiomatically: in general, the bla bla is no longer considered...
The reason we avoid "all" constructions in the negative can be appreciated by asking yourself: how cloudy exactly has the day been, when "the sky isn't cloudy all day"? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3167:66A1:1588:91FA (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Swedish genitive is not considered a case by all scholars today