"He loves me because I love him."
Translation:Han älskar mig eftersom jag älskar honom.
60 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
In this sentence you could use either and they basically mean the same thing. "Because" can be translated as "för", "för att", "eftersom", "därför att" "på grund av", all depending on context. For example: If you change the order of the words you could say "Eftersom jag älskar honom älskar han mig" - meaning the same thing. But you could not say "Därför att jag älskar honom älskar han mig".
The truck I have been using is to replace "därför att" with "therefore" and see if it makes sense.
"Therefore I love him he loved me" doesn't work, while "Because I love him, he loves me" makes sense. This tells me that in s sentence construction like the above, "eftersom" is s better choice than "därför att".
Admittedly, there are probably a lot of cases where this doesn't apply, but ad a geberay rule, it's worked so far.
960
Except that in English "therefore" is basically the oppositre of "because", with a similar meaning to "so" If "därför" or "därför att" can be translated as "because" and often means the same thing as "eftersom", it can't be "therefore"...
- 1136
Därför literally translates as therefore in English, but the "att" in "därför att" changes the meaning. If it helps, think of the "att" as inverting, or at least changing the meaning of "therefore" perhaps?
There is no difference. (Although 'därför att' is never used to start a sentence.)
att is typically used as an infinitive marker, or sometimes it means that (As in "You know that.... Du vet att...)
In this situation, just view därför att as a phrase.
Am I correct in seeing "...därför att..." more as "because" and "...därför..." as therefore?
I wrote Han älskar mig därför att jag älskar honom, and it was wrong. Can anyone help me understand why därför att is wrong in this case?
If we had already the same example where 'because' was 'därför' it' s not fair to consider mistake if we write 'därfor'. :/
If it's wrong it's wrong! And that's what we're here to learn, right?
It's all part of the learning process, you see unfamiliar stuff and make mistakes and your brain starts to make sense of it. Don't think of it as failing, because it's really not
Would the "j" in "jag" be capitalised because it means "I" even when it's not at the start of a sentence or not?
They are incorrect answers so sometimes have spelling mistakes. Also, mej is commonly used by teenagers instead of mig.
Right, I had also "ha" instead of "har" as a correct answer, so I guess we are here to learn familiar swedish too! :)
Could "därför att" be translated as "therefore" and that is why it's not at the beginning of a sentence?
The direction is different, isn't it? "My wife died, therefore we buried her" versus "My wife died, because (därför att/eftersom) we buried her."
If it helps you remember, sure. :) They mean sort of the same thing, but English "therefore" is more old-fashioned and/or high-style than "därför att".
I had previously thought that darför = therefore, but in English to exchange the word 'because' for 'therefore' in this sentence is to reverse the meaning.
He loves me therefore I love him = I love him because he loves me
Now I'm thinking that perhaps darför is a false friend for therefore?
- 595
therefore = därför
Han älskar mig, därför älskar jag honom.
because = därför att
Han älskar mig därför att jag älskar honom.
Also, observe the different order of jag and älskar in the two examples.
would "han älskar mig förat jag älskar honom" be right? doesn't "förat" also mean "because"?
Do you mean "han älskar mig om jag älskar honom"? That would be "He loves me if I love him".
- 137
In English, this sentence requires a comma after "me," because these are two complete sentences (independent clauses) separated by a conjunction. (i.e., "He loves me, because I love him.") Should we assume the same is not true of Swedish?
No. In a different sentence discussion, Arnauti answered the following question, Are commas less used in Swedish than English?
Arnauti's answer: Definitely. We only use commas when it's necessary for clarity these days – this has changed a lot in the last 50 years or so. Adding a comma here in Swedish wouldn't be wrong per se, but we wouldn't normally do it. It looks much better without it to me.
Why "darför att" is not accepted as "because"?: Han älskar mig darför att jag älskar honom.
The correct spelling is därför, that may be the reason. But it's a fine translation.
They're letters in their own right, not just an a with diacritics. You could just as well have asked "how important are the b and the p in English?"
Two reasons.
- Many databases and programming languages assume that diacritics are part of the letter a (or e - é, e - ë, etc.) unless explicitly stated otherwise.
- Many learners do not have access to Swedish letters on their keyboards, or the knowledge/ability to install them. Penalising them for something they are not realistically able to affect is a bit harsh.
Tack! So, simply put, I should definitely, always make sure to practice using the ä, å, and ö ?
I would definitely recommend doing so, yes!
Also, you may be interested in learning that the order in the Swedish alphabet is [...] x, y, z, å, ä, ö. :)
- 960
In one of the matching exercises, I was marked wrong for putting "eftersom" with "because". It said this has to be "since" and "därför" is "because". It seems to me these mean the same thing. What am I missing?
- 1457
I can't tell if this is a good thing or a bad thing. If somebody only loves you because you love them, they don't really love you, do they?