Translation:The dog likes you because you have food.
No, the dog thinks you are God because you give food to him. And the cat thinks he himself is God because you give food to him.
Could someone remind me what was the difference between "eftersom" and "därför att"?
In the tips section, they mentioned that you can't start a sentence with därför att, but you can with eftersom.
As I read, eftersom would be like our english 'since,' and därför like our 'because.'
Luckily the web archive has it saved: https://web.archive.org/web/20170224131222/http://www.thelocal.se:80/blogs/theswedishteacher/2012/04/16/for-for-att-darfor-att-and-eftersom/
My girlfriend says, därför att, in the middle of this sentence sounds strange, she claims swedish people would say instead, för att.
Därför without the "att" translates to "therefore", correct? So if I wanted to say "You have food, therefore the dog likes you" it would be "Du har mat därför hunden tycker om dig"?
Yes, but you'd have to change the word order: Du har mat, därför tycker hunden om dig.
därför att is a subjunction (which joins a clause and a subclause) but därför is just an adverb that can be used to join clauses, therefore both clauses are main clauses and will use the V2 rule.
Hunden tycker om dig, därför har du mat means 'the dog likes you, therefore you have food'. So it might not make a whole lot of sense, but you're right it'd still be V2 in both clauses.
So, därför att and eftersom are interchangeable except when eftersom starts the sentence?
Is the difference between 'därför att' and 'eftersom' like the difference between 'want' and 'omdat' in Dutch and 'denn' and 'weil' in German?
I also wonder that. One form for connecting causes, the other for reasons?
I think that "därför att" most closely matches "want" because you can not say that conjunction at the beginning of a sentence.
därför att means 'because', but just därför means 'therefore' or 'because of that'. So although they look alike, they have very different meaning.
Not quite. "Feed", when used to mean giving an animal sustenance, is generally reserved for animals bred for commercial/practical purposes. I might give my beef cattle "feed", but I'd give my cat "food"; I might give my hens "feed", but I'd give my pet mouse "food". I would never say I give my dog "feed" unless I was fattening him to be part of a good Chinese meal!
do we use därför att together always here or can we use därför on its own when we want to say because?
You can use därför on its own, but then it works differently. So you can't skip att here, but you could say for instance: Jag har mat. Därför tycker hunden om mig.
The dog likes you and therefore you have food would switch cause and effect and the result would mean something very different from the sentence above, and be highly improbable.
'därför att' compared to simply 'därför' is where i was thinking wrong then
this sentence in English is not grammatically correct unfortunately- the dog likes you because you have the food, not have got the food.
Hunden tycker om dig därför att du har mat.
How do I know when to use "Dig" for you or "du" for you. Here both are referring to the person but use different versions of "you". Thanks everyone
du is the subject form and dig is the object form. It has to be dig here because it's an object. Since they both happen to be the same in English, you can try with he/him instead: The dog likes him, not he, for the same reason. :)
When does one use "På grund av" as opposed to "Därför att" Is på grund av when it is more of a causal type thing such as "The car got into an accident 'because of' the icy roads? Or are they used interchangeably? Thanks ahead of time for your help.
"På grund av" is followed by a noun, but "Därför att" (or any other att-construction), is followed by a sub-clause/verb-expression. "Eftersom" can not be followed by a noun either. One could say that "på grund av" is translated to "because of the".