"The guy cooked for his new boyfriend."
Translation:Killen lagade mat till sin nya pojkvän.
Having this sentence feels very natural in a Swedish tree. I believe that it is important for learners of Swedish to study sentences like these as well, because they will most likely need them in Sweden.
I'm glad to know that about this sentence. I was only learning Swedish to help my syskonbarn who wanted to learn it. But, if hen lost interest, I thought I might not continue learning. But, now I've decided to go ahead with it regardless. ^_^
PS I have a pronunciation question, if you don't mind. I was looking at the word "lagade" and it got me thinking. In English, the vowels change their sound depending on where other vowels are placed. But, Japanese vowels don't affect each other. Which route does Swedish take?
[Edited, "noun" replaced with "vowel"]
I'm still quite not sure I understand what you mean, but maybe you are talking about diphtongs, like in the word noun where ou represents a sound like /a/ and /u/ melting together. Actually you have lots of diphtongs in English that are written in other ways, like in high where you have a sound like /a/ and /i/ melting together. The same happens in the word I for instance.
The short story about Swedish is that diphtongs are very characteristic for Scanian, the Swedish spoken in the southernmost part of the country, (there was recently a forum post about that), but in Standard Swedish, we don't have them. I hope this helps, if not, please give more examples about where English vowels influence each other.
Let's see. I mean how there is "at" (as in Atlas), and then there is "ate". Because an e follows the t, the a changes it's sound. I'm not sure what that's called.
Ah, I don't know what that's called, at least not off the top of my head. But it doesn't happen in Swedish. What does happen is that vowels become short when followed by double consonants (or, more correctly, that short vowels are written with double consonants after them). So ful (ugly) and full (full, drunk) sound differently and mean different things.
Edit: I should have taken the example glas (glass) and glass (ice cream) instead.
We kind of have this in English too. One example is "later" (l-ay-ter), and "latter". Or "filling" and "filing".
Hi there- Duolingo aims to provide an inclusive environment and you might find sentences like this. If you do not have grammar questions regarding this sentence please don't include them in the discussion. If you need a reminder of the Community Guidelines you can take a look here: http://duolingo.com/guidelines. Thanks!
It's attributive + determinate + singular + n-gender + masculine. The masculine form is optional, so you could just as well write hans nya pojkvän.
It goes like this:
en pojkvän – en ny pojkvän
pojkvännen – den nya/nye pojkvännen
pojkvänner – nya pojkvänner
pojkvännerna – de nya pojkvännerna
The attributive form means that it's used like the Y X (e.g. the red car)
The other form is called predicative, used when you say X is Y (e.g. the car is red) it's like this:
Pojkvännen är ny.
Pojkvännerna är nya.
I'm sorry Arnauti I'm sure the above reply sums it up really well but I'm struggling to make sense of it! You've said that "Singular: en pojkvän – en ny pojkvän " so surely the sentence should still read 'hans ny pojkvän' because it's not plural?
Two singular examples were shown before the plural examples because one is definite and the other is indefinite, such as with "A new boyfriend" vs "The new boyfriend".
You can use either nya or nye and you can confirm they are definite here (click to expand the purple box):
Not 100% sure, but I believe, "Jag brukade laga mat till min förra pojkvän." Any native speakers please correct me.
PS I'd like to add as an afterthought that it's also possible to use gamla in the same way thorr18 used 'old' here – so that both min gamla pojkvän and 'my old boyfriend' are potentially ambiguous.
Mainly it's just that different languages prefer different prepositions. We tend to use till for situations including a 'giver' and a 'recipient'.
I'm pretty sure it's because "pojkvän" is in the Swedish definite article. It is HIS boyfriend. Any adjective where you have the noun in the definite article will have an a added to the ending.
So for example:
A blue boat - En blå båt (Indefinite article)
The blue boat - Den blåa båten (Definite article)
A tasty apple - Ett gott äpple (Indefinite article)
That tasty apple - Det där goda äpplet (Definite article)
A new boyfriend - En ny pojkvän ( Indefinite article)
His new boyfriend - Hans nya pojkvän (Definite article)
I don't know if you understood that, but hopefully you did. Good luck with your Swedish!
I really don't understand what definite or indefinite mean. That grammar concept is new to me. I understand singular and plural alright but definite and indefinite I don't understand.
Definite is when your referring to a special item or person. Indefinite is when it could be any item or person. In Swedish it is called "bestämd form" (definite article) and "obestämd form" (indefinite article) which directly translates as decided and undecided form, which really makes sense in the meaning.
Example of indefinite could be "a chair". That could be any chair, it is not decided which chair it is, it is just "a chair".
Example for definite in this case is "that chair". You have decided what chair it is. It is that chair. It cannot be any other chair.
Another example of definite article could be "his boyfriend". This is definite because it is decided which boyfriend it is; it is "his".
In Swedish when a noun described with an adjective is in the definite article you add an a at the end of the adjective.
I might be too late, haha. Anyway, I hoped this helped. Good luck!
Thanks. I really was not clear on what those terms meant before your explanation
You can say "åt" in this sentence and it would still be correct.
I think the reason we don't say "för" here is because he's giving his boyfriend something - giving something "to" him. We don't use "för" in gift coherences at all. It's always "till" or "åt". In some cases "åt" doesn't sound as natural as "till" though, not in this case though. I don't know exactly why that is, so to always be sure I would just advice you to always use "till" unless someone else can explain it.