"I really like my boss."
Translation:Jag tycker verkligen om min chef.
Both should be accepted, but they don't mean the same thing. Jag tycker verkligen om min chef means that I like him very much. Jag tycker egentligen om min chef means that I like him in spite of something, like "although… " , or "actually".
Really has both those meanings in English.
Okay then why in another Swedish->English sentence where verkligen was used "The food is really tasty" is accepted but "The food is very tasty" is not (I don't have the exact Swedish sentence handy). This comment here provides me with the opposite information that you provided in a comment on that earlier sentence. From that discussion I came to the inference that verkligen means something more like "in actuality" (like how you are using enentligen here), and cannot be used in the sense of "very" or "thoroughly".
I can see how my 2014 attempt at an explanation here was a bit too simplified. There's a much more detailed discussion about the difference between verkligen and egentligen in this thread: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/15625922
verkligen (in expressions like verkligen god) just like 'really', can mean both 'in actuality' and 'very', which is why 'really' is a perfect translation while 'very' is not.
It's pretty much the same case here: Jag tycker verkligen om min chef has the same ambiguity as I really like my boss – it can mean either 'in actuality' or 'a lot'. egentligen would only mean 'in actuality', but with the added implication of it being 'despite appearances' or 'contrary to what one might think' or 'at the heart of the matter'. – I like my boss a lot isn't currently an accepted translation for this sentence either, so there's no inconsistency that way at the moment.
Where do you mean I assumed that? In my comment? I was just answering your "what if". In the sentences, we've tried to let words like ingenjören, chefen etc be sometimes male, sometimes female, though I'm sure we haven't done it perfectly.
What I was too lazy to point out last time was this: although there is often a feeling that nouns ending in -en are more masculine than words ending in -an, there are many exceptions to this, like pappan ('the dad'), damen ('the lady') etc. There are however some obviously male profession words, like brandman ('firefighter') which seem to be hard to replace, I'm not aware of a good gender neutral version of that one. Sjuksköterska ('nurse') is one of the rare examples of the opposite, it's used for both male and female nurses the same way en brandman can be both male and female.
In general, there is a striving to replace male words like riksdagsman ('member of parliament') with gender neutral words like riksdagsledamot. In Sweden, this tendency is stronger than the tendency to use female words too, as they do in Germany. We have the word riksdagskvinna too, but it is preferred to use riksdagsledamot for all of them rather than to divide them up into riksdagsmän and riksdagskvinnor.
For him or her, we have a new pronoun that you may have heard about, hen, which is on the rise. It's been mentioned in several discussion forums, I don't have a good link at hand at the moment though.
Very interesting, tack. Does hen replace hon and han as subject too? English is really behind in this field; some use 'they' instead of 'he/she,' 'them' instead of 'him/her,' and 'their' instead of 'his/her;' however, it's not very widespread. A writer risks being judged badly for using it, yet the alternatives are all clumsy. For example, going back to your comment about the boss, you would have had to write, "...that I like him or her very much." That's long and clumsy. Or you can just turn the tables and write an unexpected 'her.' Then people might assume you are a "feminist." English really needs some gender-neutral pronouns.
Yes, it works as a subject; as an object it can be either hen (the form recommended by the Language Council) or henom, used by some. Hen will be included in the 2015 edition of Svenska akademiens ordlista, the spelling wordlist that comes closest to defining the norms of the language, even though they don't really want to be normative. Today, you can find the word even in business letters and court decisions, but it also annoys many people. I found a thread where it's discussed at some length: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/5531330
Yes, it's really wrong. We don't use riktigt that way. It can be used with verbs (usually with verbs that have a meaning of something intense or extreme) but then it has another, very special meaning. I found this example in a dictionary: jag riktigt njuter av att höra henne = 'it is a positive joy (delight) for me to hear her'.