"It is actually my son you are talking about."

Translation:Det är faktiskt min son du pratar om.

December 3, 2014

This discussion is locked.


Shouldn't egentligen work here too?


What's wrong about "egentligen"?


So why can't it be "egentligen"? Just curious.


And also what is wrong with, "Det är faktiskt min son som du pratar om"?


So you can skip relative pronouns as you do in English? The skipped pronouns is - min son "som" du pratar om -?


You are only able to skip it because the son mentioned earlier in the sentence is not performing an action. Son is not a subject, but rather an object in both halves. Otherwise, you would use a relative pronoun to refer back. In this sentence, we reuse the object for the second half of the sentence, but we are not reusing the subject "det". Nothing in the first half is acting in the second half. We have "du" newly introduced in the second half, so there is no need for a relative pronoun to refer back to earlier. e.g. If we changed the sentence to: "That is my son who is talking about me" a relative pronoun is used. The son is the subject of the second half and the object of the first half and we don't say son twice.


How come egentligen is not accepted here? It is accepted elsewhere for 'actually'. Thank you in advance




It repeats some of questions already asked, but just want to double check the difference between verkligen, egentligen, and faktiskt. Can I simply say that verkligen is for emphasising, egentligen for contradicting, and faktiskt for somewhere between informing and emphasising? It is especially confusing to me how egentligen is different from faktisk, because I though actually can be used both for contradicting and reinforcing in English


Hey, so here is another word meaning actually. And it looks to mean something in the realm of Egentligen?


Faktiskt will mostly be used to reinforce a statement, translatable to actually/really/for real.


How does verkligen then enter the picture? I thought that was the one that was used for emphasis.


Tack så mycket, igen :)


Is it ok if att is added here - "Det är faktiskt min son att du pratar om"?


No, att is not used as you might use that here (as a relative pronoun). We'd use som for this 'that'. :)

att can translate 'that' in sentences like 'I know that he is your son' Jag vet att han är din son but then att is a subjunction, not a relative pronoun – you can tell because it doesn't point back to a previously mentioned noun.


I picked up the meaning of "faktist" from watching scandi crime


Could faktiskt be uses to say, "in fact"? That is in fact my son you are talking about?


Okay, from previous lessons, I thought "egentligen" meant actually, "verkligen" meant really, and now "faktiskt" means actually too? Also, I forgot there was "riktigt" too. I saw some write "faktiskt" means "in fact", but I understood that "egentligen" does too? " Would someone help me understand when each are used? Tack!

[deactivated user]

    Can we put ''talar'' instead of ''pratar''?


    Yes, that works too. A tad more formal.


    I first started Swedish on Rosetta Stone a long time ago, it seemed to use pratar for speak and talar for talk, so that is how I learned it, but duo tends to do the opposite. I noticed they generally accept both, you mentioned talar is more formal, is that the only difference?

    • 2269

    Why does the 2-1 rule not apply?


    It applies. There are one main sentence ( it is my son) and a relative clause ( that you are talking about). But the relative pronoun som (that) is skipped.


    I see that several others have asked about the word "egentligen," but since no one has responded I thought I'd ask as well. If the sentence insinuates a contradiction, then why is it "faktiskt" instead of "egentligen?"


    "about" has many possible translations. Why is "om" best here? Why not "med"?


    Their meanings are different depending on what word you use with the word.

    Prata med = Speak with

    Prata om = Speak about


    Why are both "du pratar om" and "ni pratar om" accepted here?


    It's because the English word "you" could be used to refer to a singular subject or a plural subject. The plural of "you" is "you" (or sometimes "y'all" or others, if your dialect allows). This means "you" could accurately be translated to du or to ni. We don't know which case the English you is in when reading this sentence.


    Why is "äntligen" not accept it instead of "faktiskt"? They seem interchangeable to me.


    "äntligen" means finally. However, I have the same question as you about egentligen, which can mean actually.

    The people's dictionary gave this example sentence with "egentligen", which seems similar to the sentence here:

    bullret är egentligen det enda som stör mig

    the noise is actually the only thing that bothers me


    I wonder if we need the word "som" between son and du.


    You could skip it in English also.
    "That is my son [that/which/whom] you speak of."


    Am i the only one who can't stop laughing at how faktiskt sounds very much like f*ck this in English?


    I was looking for the word "att" which wasn't in the word list. Would it be incorrect to say "... faktiskt min son att du ....?"


    Is "Den är faktisk min son du pratar om" incorrect? Why if "son" is an en-word?


    Du talar faktiskt om min son. Why is this wrong please?

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