Should the translation 'the priest hadn't time' be accepted here? It works in 'English' English.
Interestingly, Chaucer (Middle English, I believe) spelled "hade" as "hadde". Cool to see the influence these languages have had on each other over the past century or so.
Chaucer was not around in the past century. He's from the second half of the 14th century, when the Nordic languages had nothing to do with English. True, the Middle English for "had" was "hadde" from Old English "hæfde" (pronounced hav-day) while Old Norse had "hafði" (prononuced hav-thee). The similarities stem from the fact that both Swedish and English have common ancestry in the hypothetical Proto-Germanic language, but other than a few words introduced by Nordic invaders who settled in the north of England between 790 and 1066 ("Vikings"), the two languages haven't had much contact since before 400AD, a long time in linguistic terms. It's always cool to find the similarities, and some sentences sound almost exactly the same in each language, but others are extremely different.
Those who came in 1066 were also essentially descendants from Vikings if to think about it...
I don't think the -e necessarily have to do with Nordic influence though, Chaucer spelt many words with -e at the end. The similarities in this example are probably a coincidence.
How does 'hade ingen tid' compare with 'hade inte tid?' In US English I would use 'not have time' more often than 'have no time' (without any particular change in meaning), but in German I believe one would generally say 'hatte keine Zeit' (corresponding to 'ingen tid' instead of 'hatte nicht Zeit.' In English, I feel the difference is more one of customary usage, but in German and perhaps in Swedish, there is something additional going with the no/not distinction that may or may not apply to this example. Thoughts?
Does "Prästen hinner" work, or does it need an object like "Prästen hinner för oss"
I can't say whether or not this is possible, but it would have to be in the past tense, Prästen hann inte. My instincts tell me this isn't a complete sentence and it needs a verb, like Prästen hann inte göra något, but I could be wrong.
You're right that the expression would be Prästen hann inte. This expression does work on its own, of course it somehow requires a context, but it still works as a sentence on its own so it's an accepted answer.
No, although lade and sade that are pronounced la and sa, hade pronounced with two syllables in the past. So it's actually said as if it were written 'hadde'.
Oh I see, so Is there a specific grammar for pronouncing the past verbs that end with "de" ? it's so confusing ×_× Tack för hjälpen
For longer verbs, like pratade, the ending is usually omitted in the spoken language, but it doesn't sound odd to pronounce it either, many people do that at least occasionally, some people do it a lot. Most people will say the ending if they speak slowly and clearly.
For lade and sade it sounds odd to pronounce the -de ending, even in slow, careful speech. So out of those two groups, it's just hade that is the odd one out as far as I know – any native speakers correct me if I'm forgetting something here. (These 3 are the only 2-syllable ones).
^this is all just about the -de ending in verbs that end in -ade. If there's anything other than a before the -de, we don't skip -de. For instance no one ever skips the de ending in verbs like gjorde 'did'.