"The dog likes you because you have food."

Translation:Hunden tycker om dig därför att du har mat.

November 18, 2014

This discussion is locked.


What's the difference between "därför att" and "eftersom"?


I think the only difference is that a sentence can begin with eftersom


Why is att needed? "The dog likes you because of that you have food" is how I would interpret something like that. I know swedish does not have word for word translation, but I'm unsure why att is needed here.

Could you say "Hunden gillar dig därför du har mat"?


From what I read on other disucssions, "Darför ätt" and "Därför" are very different words :

-"Darför ätt" go together, it's an expression and it means "because".

-When "Därför" is alone, it means "so", "therefore"

So, "Hunden gillar dig därför du har mat" would mean "The dog likes you, so you have food".

"Därför att" is quite similar to "Eftersom", the main difference is you can't use "Därför att" at the beginning of a sentence.

You can say :

"Eftersom du har mat, hunden tycker om dig" ("because you have food, the dog likes you")

But "Därför att du har mat, hunden tycker om dig " doesnt exist.


Then why is ''eftersom'' not accepted, but Darför att is?


It's accepted now.


Not for me! 6.10.20


Not for me either 2.5.21


Not for me. 03.09.2021


Not for me either. 03.09.2021


No it isn't sept3,2021


Not for me either


that explanation was awesome! thanks :)


Fantastic explanation, thank you. :)


I just laughed at this sentence -- it's true anywhere you go! :)


Why is "Hunden tycker om dig eftersom du har mat" not accepted?


funnily enough, the same sentence is now accepted, but it reports at typo and replaces "därför att" in the corrected version, so I'm still not sure if eftersom is correct in this context


I guess it's a bug in this software because from what ive gathered, därför att can always be replaced by eftersom


I have this same question.


Why is using du twice not correct? What is different about the two positions that requires a different word? I thought du and dig both meant you...


Yes, "du" and "dig" both mean "you" but with a different role in a sentence. "Du" is subject and "dig" is object. I explained it somewhere above with "he" and "him" ("han" and "honom").


So, to clarify my (somewhat tenuous) understanding of subject vs. object, in this phrase the dog is the object because it is performing the action of 'liking', whilst you are the subject because you are the target of the action, i.e. being 'liked'?


It is difficult for me to use the correct grammatical names in English (not my native language). The subject performs the action on the direct object. In the first part of the sentence "the dog" is the subject and "you" is the direct object; in the second part of the sentence "you" is the subject and "food" is the direct object.


Ah yes, the change in object/subject is what was tripping me up, but your responses make it much clearer, thank you!


How do you write bold and italic?


Text surrounded by underscores (_) will be made italic and text surrounded by double asterisks (**) will be made bold. I once wondered if it would work and lo and behold, it did!


Test: bold and italic and no need for quotes ("). Tack så mycket!


Why is "Hunden gillar dig därför att ni har mat" not accepted? Is it because of 'gillar' (which I thought was ok) or because it uses 'ni'?

[deactivated user]

    Just a guess, but I think it would be "hunden gillar er" if you're using "ni'.


    yeah i'm pretty sure you need to keep it all plural if you're using 'ni' and 'er' would be what you would use.


    Correct, you need to use plural for both 'er' and 'ni'.

    "Hunden gillar er därför att ni har mat" OR "Hunden gillar dig därför att du har mat"

    are correct common versions.

    I guess in formal, old swedish the former example is valid för singular person but ignore that for now.


    If that is the case, that's quite perplexing as it seems like it might be an exception of some kind. Can anyone clarify for us?...

    [deactivated user]

      As katsiano says below, I figure it's simply a case of singular vs plural - "dig / du" (singular) vs "er / ni" (plural). I think your sentence is mixing the two: "Hunden gillar dig (singular) därför att ni (plural)..."


      I've just realised how stupid I was. I'm better at doing a grammering now though.

      [deactivated user]

        Congrats on your progress, and here's a lingot for making me laugh.


        I think that, "The dog likes you specifically because y'all all have food" is a valid sentence, but a different meaning. It also doesn't make much logical sense. I don't know that your response was technically incorrect, but your learned something and that's what matters.


        I translated it as "Hunden gillar dig eftersom du har mat" and it was accepted, so I would assume it was your use of "ni" in the sentence that was classed as incorrect. Not sure why, though!


        Maybe because du means you (singular) and ni means you (plural) so you used different you's


        When with these 2 word verb forms (tycker om) do you stick things between the words (tycker inte om etc.)


        Sometimes you do, especially when rule V2 is used i believe


        I just wanted to know that what's the difference between "Gillar" and "Tycker om"? I think both of them means "Like"

        • 1724

        "för du har mat" should also be accepted. "För" is an old causal conjunction : "Han får inte gå ut för han är sjuk" (Svensk ordbok)


        No cats love people because they have food but dog no it is the best people friend!


        The difference between cats and dogs: the dog thinks you are God because you give him food and the cat thinks he is God because you give him food.


        JoseeV64, you sound like a philosopher! Please have a lingot for making me laugh :).


        Thank you, you're welcome. Have a nice day.


        So it has been at least 2 years and eftersom is still not accepted.


        Why wouldn't "hunden tycker om du därför att dig har mat" works?


        Ah, you mixed up the subject and object forms of 'you'. "du" is subject and "dig" is object. Maybe it's easier with 'him' and 'he': "Hunden tycker om honom därför att han har mat." So for 'you' (twice): "Hunden tycker om dig därför att du har mat."

        [deactivated user]

          "Jag är vegetarian, därför äter jag inte kyckling". This sentence was contributed by a moderator. I am confused. Why is the word order different in "hunden tycker om dig därför att du har mat"?. Am I incorrect in thinking that both "jag är vegetarian" and "hunden tycker om dig" are independent clauses?


          Shouldn't it be "hunden tycker om dig för att du har mat"?

          [deactivated user]

            I believe "för att" means "in order to" or "so that", while "darför att" means "because".


            There is essentially no difference between därför att and för att in usage or meaning with the only exception being that därför att sounds slightly more formal and för att sounds a bit more casual.


            "Hunden tycker om/gillar dig för du har mat." is not accepted. Why? It is always used this way in spoken language (I know because I speak Swedish, only started on Duolingo to get XPs).


            I thought hundarna meant 'the dogs', not 'the dog'. Is this an error in the program?


            Yes, hundarna means "the dogs". However, the sentence is about "the dog": hunden. Did you write hunden and it was not accepted?


            Can eftersom and därför att be used in the same way? I understand that eftersom can be used at the beginning of a sentence but i'm wondering if there are any other differences.


            If you say eftersom, it would be like if you said since in English. In the inside of a sentence it is - how I call it - advocate language.


            Why is "därför att har du mat" incorrect? Is the V2 rule working here?

            • 1724

            Yes. No difference between Swedish and English here. He likes you because you have food ,- Han tycker om dig därför att du har mat.

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