I always thought that it was inappropriate to say älska in reference to inanimate objects, because there is this meaning that one not only "loves" but is also "making love to" the thing, and therefore it sounds weird or silly.
I seem to remember hearing Swedes discourage native speakers who were children not to say älska the way it would be used in English, e.g. "Oh my God, I LOVE cookies!" "I just LOVE this song!"
Is this because it sounds silly to a native speaker? Or, because it is a form of anglicization which is not looked upon favorably by native speakers?
Maybe this is an old-fashioned attitude, and it just sounds normal to use älska for emphasis. What do you think? I'd be interested in hearing folks' comments.
I think Swedish and English use älska-tycka om and love-like pretty much the same way these days, so we only approve älska = love and tycka om = like in this course. I've heard the things you're saying before, but I think Swedish has changed, and that we do use älska much more these days. We're just not as restrained as we used to be.
I agree completely, two generations ago it was uncommon to love anything other than people. I think this was the topic on Språket i P1 a while ago.
You can älska inanimate things too without meaning "make love to". It's quite comparable to "to love" in that way, and used as such. For emphasis, it's acually quite common.
We say 'love' all the time. Jag älskar glass, Jag älskar böcker. Jag älskar musik. But only if I really LOVE it, it has to mean something to me, be important for me, even though inanimate.
Once the 'tips' section is available for Swedish, it would be great to see a hint on ways to figure out when brukar means 'usually' and when it means 'used to'.
As I see it, Swedish always have the verb 'brukar', and it is conjugated for past tense (brukade). It is in English it has to be changed into an adverb (usually) in the present tense, since 'used to' is always the past tense.
That's an English question, not a Swedish one.
The expression "used to" expresses something usual in the past.
Is the distinction between "Usually, the child loves ice cream" and "The child usually like ice cream" in Swedish as there can be in English, where the second signifies that the child is acting out of character and not liking the ice cream?
Yes and no. Swedish would likely express it by stressing a whatever word happens to be more important.
As i understand it, Swedish has two words for love; alskar and karlek (no Swedish keyboard) Greeks have four words for love none of which refer to anything inanimate. English has one word which has been watered down and has lost its meaning. Greek "agape" as i understand it was translated as "charity" now it is translated as "love," my understanding is that Swedish "karlek" would be Greek "agape." i am a real novice in Swedish and should have paid more attention to English grammar in high school 75 yrs ago. Am i close in this understanding?
I was surpised to see that "children use to love ice cream" is not accepted
That's because "use to" isn't used in other than past tense (used to) in standard English.
Gosh... i've been using English for more than 10 years and I just realized that. Mea culpa :p