1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Jag skulle ha gått."

"Jag skulle ha gått."

Translation:I would have gone.

June 15, 2016



"should" should've been an better option as it fits better than "would" in this scenario.

"would" is a word you use with aspiration and intent of something in the future and is kinda associated with non essential hypotheization. Not very demanding either

But "should" fits better in this case as it is of cencern and or speaking in past tense.(I assume) And is more demanding.


But "should" would be borde, so that changes the meaning.


Could somebody explain to me how should and would can both be accepted translations here? The two sentences have quite different implications. Does skulle mean either depending on context or have I missed some other cues here? Or is the "should" strictly in the sense of the oldfashioned "would" rather than implying some sense of obligation as in "borde"...?


The main meaning of skulle is 'would' (hypothetical). But especially in the spoken language, it's often used to mean 'should' (ought) too, in sentences that express regret or reproach.

I think this semantic field invites a lot of overlap. Compare how words like have to, need to and in some contexts even want to tend to be used interchangeably in English.


jag borde göra det - I should do it

I would have done it if it weren't for.. - Jag skulle ha gjort det om inte för..

I would - Jag skulle I should - Jag borde

"Jag skulle" can be in a form of regret, as in "I should've gone to her funeral" - "jag skulle ha gått till hennes bregravning", but could also be "jag borde ha" which is easier to understand the implication of ig.

"Jag skulle ha gått" can be either "I should have gone" or "I would have gone". It all depends on the context if it's about regreting not doing something or if it's an explanation of why you didn't do something or didn't go somewhere.

Sorry this is kinda a mess of a comment. Only the last part is truly relevant but I thought some examples could be good to try and explain it a bit more since our gramatic structures are kinda weird. Jag är bara en gymnasie elev hehe men tänkte att någon kanske förstår bättre med detta. Minns ibte riktigt varför jag valde tat svara på just din kommentar om detta tho. Men alla här skriver mycket smarta grejer :)


Skulle and vore have both been defined as would. How would i use either one?


"Vore" is a conjugation form of the verb "att vara" - to be. "Vore" is past subjunctive form (konjunktiv). Subjunctive verb forms are rarely used in modern Swedish - probably as odd curious words, in poetic style or to depict an old-time conversation. "Vore" is almost the only subjunctive form used today, but it is falling out of popularity.

"vore" could be used in phrases like "Om jag vore du, skulle jag ..." - If I were you, I would ... Compare "vore" to the English form "were" instead of "was"!

"Om det vore val idag, skulle det vara ..." - If election were today, it would be ...

"Om det vore så enkelt!" - If it were that simple!

"Hon dansar som om hon vore 18 år" - She is dancing as if she were 18 years (old).

So, "vore" could be used in conditional clauses after "om" - if. Actually you can use Past Simple (preteritum) in this case as well: "Om jag var du, skulle jag...", "Om det var val idag, skulle det ...", "Om det var så enkelt!". You will see and hear such sentences more often than with "vore". The meaning is exactly the same. Other verbs are used in Past Simple in such conditional clauses: "Om det regnade, skulle vi ta bilen" - If it were raining, we would take the car.

"Vore" could be used to express that some condition or state is desirable and possible. In that case you can change "vore" to "skulle vara". I think that "skulle vara" is more common in modern informal speech. It is also used in more formal texts as newspaper articles and books. Some examples:

"Det vore kul!" = "Det skulle vara kul!" - It would be fun!

"Det vore dumt att göra så." = "Det skulle vara dumt att göra så" - It would be stupid to do so.

"Det vore så skönt att göra det nu." = "Det skulle vara så skönt att göra det nu." - It would be so nice to do it now.

Other verbs are used together with "ska/skulle": "Jag skulle vilja fråga." - I would like to ask, "Jag skulle köpa spelet, men ..." - I would buy the game, but ... There are other ways to express such desirable states and actions.

This topic is quite advanced, but I hope you have got an idea about how it could work. Such aspects are discussed more on higher levels (B2 and over according to European scale) when learners have developed some feeling for language and are more self-going. I have overgeneralized a lot - please, take in consideration that there are more possible correct modes of expression. You will definitely learn them later!


Thanks a lot! That was quite enlightening.


Skulle = would

Vore = skulle vara = would be


Tack. I have to study this


I could have gone is not a correct translation? Why not?


That's Jag kunde ha gått - the difference between "could" and "would" is just as large in Swedish as it is in English.


Does the 'gone' part mean 'I would have gone, if ... There had been something interesting'. Or 'I would have gone (left) if that had happened to me.'. Or both?


It could definitely be either.


I didn't try the following, but 'I would have walked '(so short distance). We are often emphaized that 'gå' means to walk and 'åka' or 'resa' means to go. But I have known that it is not so simple...


left and walked are just WRONG

left = leave, ... and walked has nothing to do with leaving a place or go to a place

and skulle ha = should have

none of all the other options that are now being accepted


Learn Swedish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.