"I do not really trust him."

Translation:Jag litar egentligen inte på honom.

November 29, 2014

This discussion is locked.


"Jag litar verkligen inte på honom." was marked wrong. Reason: Because that means "I really do not trust him." Please explain why using "verkligen" instead of "egentligen" changes the meaning of the sentence in that way.


Both verkligen and egentligen often translate to really, but they have different meanings. verkligen can be used as an intensifier, like in Hon är verkligen lång = 'She is really tall'. (basically = 'she is very tall') egentligen cannot be used as an intensifier.

egentligen has a nuance of 'in fact', 'although you may have reason to think this is not so'. This is what it means in the sentence above. Somebody may believe that I trust him, but I don't.


So "egentligen" is more like "actually"?


Yes, I have come to that conclusion.


It took me until now to realise it's like the German "eigentlich", so I guess I should've known, haha.


Haha! Language is fun! I have realized more about my native Swedish language through other languages than I otherwise would have notised.


Thanks, that just made me realise it's like the Afrikaans "eintlik", which means "actually".


Verkligen is like the German "wirklich."


But the English sentence is ambiguous as to whether it's an intensifier or an explanation. I read it as being an intensifier. As in I especially don't trust him.


Exellent explanation.


I know word order is a very complex topic but can someone shed some light on "inte + adverb"? It feels totally random to me, sometimes the adverb goes before "inte", sometimes it goes after, sometimes it doesn't matter...

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻


Just looking through this discussion and found your question. There is an answer to it here if you haven't already found an answer here since its been a while since you asked:


It is all in swedish so will test your learning lol But basically the answer is it is to do with the "weight" the word has in the sentence.

So in English, I dont trust him has the same meaning as I dont really trust him with really having the emphasis, so in this case the egentligen goes before the inte. Jag litar inte på honom isnt that different to jag litar egentligen inte på honom, the egentligen is adding the emphasis or weight in the sentence.

But if you have something where the inte completely changes the meaning, the inte will usually go first. I dont always feel good is different to I always feel good. So one would write Jag mår inte alltid bra as that is not the same as jag mår alltid bra. Probably crap examples but thats the one used in the link.

Does this make sense? This has been bugging me for a while. If you can read the link it covers other satsadverbials and where they go. For example they say fortfarande generally goes in front of the inte.


This level is literally killing me


Why is "Jag litar inte verkligen på honom" wrong?


See my answer to JimNolt about why verkligen doesn't work here.
If we were to use verkligen, the word order in your sentence would still be wrong, it would have to be Jag litar verkligen inte på honom.


I understood really here as an intensifier and used this word order. Translation was still not accepted. Why?


really isn't really an intensifier in this English sentence; it's a modal adverb.
See what I did there?


Yes, underdstood. Thanks for the help! Got it also when reading the sentence a second time.


But how do you know where Inte goes


This is a page with a very good description of Swedish word order. It's in Swedish, but you might understand it anyway.
I think sooner or later someone from our team will try to write a longer text about word order, but it really isn't very simple.


I wrote a bit about Swedish word order here: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/8970470


I was trying to figure this out and pored through Google for examples, and couldn't find explanations. It just seems that other adverbs are precede the clausal adverb "Inte", because Inte is more important. When Swedes speak, they mumble or quickly pass the adverb right after the verb (litar), and it's Inte that really changes the meaning of the sentence.

Can any Swedes explain this? Could you switch around the order of INTE and VERKLIGEN (different meaning from egentligen) to achieve different meanings? There is an example with Inte and Pronouns here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2589849

This is so dense (grammar research by Finns), shows sentence breakdowns. i can't get past the 1st half page: www.ling.helsinki.fi/kielitiede/20scl/Engdahl.pdf


I agree with what King.ameki says above, you can't move inte in the sentence "Jag litar verkligen inte på honom".

There's a special rule about personal pronouns, they can go before inte. In sentences like the example from Wordreference, their example was like this:

Jag såg honom inte. I did not see him (stress on I... maybe others saw him)
Jag såg inte honom. I did not see him (stress on him... I saw others, but not him)

You can do this with pronouns, but not with other words. So, you can say Jag såg inte Sven, but you can't say Jag såg Sven inte.


I wish DL had grammar info, im just having to guess a lot of these sentences with adverbs


Me too. It isn't really explained how to construct sentences, and the explanations given in the comments tend to use technical language jargon which is outside my understanding. It comes down to guess work half the time. I'm going to look for videos on how to understand word placement and splitting verbs and prepostions and the like. It is really frustrating to not get it.


Could someone explain the structure of this sentence?


The verb ”lita” (trust) must be constructed with the preposition ”på” in Swedish. We say ”to trust on someone”, just as you can say ”trust IN someone” in English. The word ”egentligen” means ”in fact, actually, really”. So it’s literally: ”I trust in fact not on him”.


In English, "I really do not trust him" and "I do not really trust him" mean different things - does swapping "inte" around in a sentence like this have the same effect? Or does the meaning depend on the verb used?


Why is "faktiskt" not accepted as a translation of "really"?


Jag litar faktiskt inte på honom is 'I actually don't trust him' in English, so it doesn't mean quite the same thing.


In Dutch verkligen is werkelijk means actually egentligen is eigenlijk meabs as a matter of fact werkelijk is an intensifier eigenlijk is more a dry fact the same goes fir wirklich und eigenlich in German


I wrote "jag litar riktigt inte på honom" and it wasn't accepted. Does it have a different meaning?


No, just wrong word order, you need to have inte right after the verb here.



is it because "egentligen inte" is idiomatic?


inte riktigt is the idiomatic way of saying not quite, so you can't change the internal order of that. Also, there's a difference in what they modify. egentligen modifies the entire sentence. This is a complicated area so there's more to learn about how different adverbs work.


I wrote "Jag litar inte riktig pa honom" and it was marked wrong. It said I need to have used riktigt. Why? It's an adverb here not an adjective. Why does it have to be neutral?


Adverbs are usually formed by adding -t (riktigt, vackert) to the adjective base. As adverbs, there's no concept of neuter or common forms.


I wrote "Jag litar inte homom." Why this goes wrong?!


because that would be the translation of "I do not trust him", rather than the translation of "I do not really trust him". This use of really adds meaning to the sentence, as does the corresponding use of egentligen.
It's like using actually, as in "I do not actually trust him."


I still can't wrap my head around the myriad uses of "på". What's its significance in this sentence? I would have thought "jag litar egentligen inte honom" was sufficient. So why is på needed?


In this case, it's just that it goes with the verb: litar always requires .


TTS seems to pronounce "egentligen" with both soft "g"s, but my dictionary says that the second one should be hard. Same as in verkligen. Is there a reason why sometimes "g" is hard before "e"?


I'm a Swede, and I hear the second 'g' not as soft, but since it is unstressed it is not really hard either, it's passing very fast. I was thinking about another example, and that is the verb 'ligga', which in the present tense is 'ligger', and there the 'g' is hard. I suppose we keep the sound from the infinitive, the -er is just the tense-ending. Swedish is not that regular when it comes to 'soft' and 'hard'. Sometimes it is different in different dialects.


welcome to another confusing Swedish forum, for a confusing sentence, dear confused Swedish enjoyer :D

Learn Swedish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.