"He loves me because I love him."
Translation:Han älskar mig eftersom jag älskar honom.
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".
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.
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! :)
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
I wrote 'at' in stead of 'att', I feel this should just count as a typo, but it didn't :(.
Do you mean "han älskar mig om jag älskar honom"? That would be "He loves me if I love him".
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?
would "han älskar mig förat jag älskar honom" be right? doesn't "förat" also mean "because"?
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.