I remember the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an lemon to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of turtles on 'em. Give me five turtles for a quarter, you'd say.
Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an lemon on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have yellow lemons because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big orange ones...
Laughing so hard! Ah, the Simpsons. But you had the wit to change bumblebees to Skoldpaddar-- an important Duo animal, kanshe THE most important.... Ah, takes me back, back before the Crowns came to town and moved min ost....
So, if you add an S to the end of the noun, does it become a possessive? Is that the pattern I'm seeing here?
The R makes the rest of the consonant cluster of N, S, D and/or T retroflex, even across words.
/et ba:ɳʂ ʂitru:n/
In a word like Hornstull, it makes it sound /huːɳʂ'ʈɵlː/
Had citron not been preceded by an R-sound cluster, it'd be regular /sitru:n/
Hope that helps.
It's also has to do with dialects. In the south of Sweden, the "c" in "citron" has a very clear "s"-sound.
In this sentence "ett" is the article for "barns".
What if I want to say "A lemon of the child"?
Should I say "En barnets citron" or it's just something you don't say?
I don't think anybody would say it like that. 'Barnets citron' would be the closest translation.
The other day I went to Publix to buy a lemon, they tried to sell me a child's lemon. It was only half the size of a normal lemon.
I became very irate " and said "how can I make a pitcher of lemonade with a childs lemon?"
So I bought a can of Coke and sadly walked home.
I love how it doesn't specify which child. Just a child. It almost implies that Rhett are different lemons for different age groups.
"Oh, don't eat that lemon, that's a CHILD'S lemon. Here, eat this adults-only lemon."
I am confused with barn it's ett word and why are we saying barnen in definite form instead of Barnet
Barn is an ett word. It's one of those words where the indefinite plural is the same as the indefinite singular, so 'child' and 'children' are both barn.
You can usually tell if it's singular or plural because of the the context - if there's an ett then you know it's singular, if not then it's plural. (Think 'a sheep ate it' versus 'sheep ate it'.) If there's a possessive word it'll be e.g. mitt barn for 'my child' and mina barn for 'my children'. So you can usually (always?) tell which is meant.
But when you use the definite article, you need it for singular and plural - 'the sheep ate it'... how many sheep are we talking here? One or several? And it takes the place of other determiners, you can't say 'the my sheep' so there's no mitt/min/mina context.
So for these words where the singular and plural are the same, Swedish has two definite forms. Because barn is an ett word, the definite singular is what you'd expect - -et on the end, barnet. And for the definite plural, you use the other, 'non-matching' ending, barnen.
(Hopefully I didn't get any inaccuracies in there, you can see I'm a newbie at this too, but there's a pattern there you can learn!)
Telemetry thank you alot I really don't have enough words to apreciate you
I don't quite get it now... What if the lemon is among many children: What would it be "a children's lemon"?
No, it means that the lemon belongs to "a child". If you had several children it would be e.g. "some children's lemon".
yes of course. What i am trying to say is that i can't see the sweedish plural form... if there is one...
- a child = ett barn
- the child = barnet
- two children = två barn
- the children = barnen
And as usual, an -s suffix makes it possessive.
No, "a children's lemon" would be en barncitron but I don't think that's what you actually mean...
and "the children's lemon" ? "ett barns citron" ? just like the singular "the child' lemon" ?
- the children's lemon = barnens citron
"the child' lemon" is not grammatical.
thanks, you have been kind. I want to ask about a doubt I have: let' s say i have an "ett word": barnet for example --"a kid" == "ett barn" --"one kid" == "en barn" ?
No, a word is either en or ett - it never changes. You have to learn for each word whether it is an en-word or an ett-word.
Lots of questions here, but why is no one asking why ETT here has to be ONE to be correct? Without any context it is just easily the whadducallit, the article.
Yes, an s following a retroflex sound - like rn - gets the sj-ljud pronunciation.
i think it should be written like en barns citron because citron is an en word and en goes back to it not to barns...?
So the article reflects the owner of the lemon? That's weird. "min citron", "ett barns citron".
It's not that weird, really. The lemon belongs to "a child", not just to "child". The possessive removes the article from the possessed item, so you don't get "a child's the lemon" or similar.
I think I'm beginning to understand it a bit. "A child's lemon" = "ett barns citron", "the child's lemon" = "barnets citron". I doubt whether the child or the lemon is defined.