1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Det är inte ovanligt."

"Det är inte ovanligt."

Translation:It is not unusual.

December 4, 2014



I'm glad to see that some Tom Jones has found its way here.


I was thinking the same thing!


Me too! Lingots all around!


I just clicked the discuss button to see this. Thank you :) parararararaaaaaa ♪


I was thinking the opposite actually!


So has Elvis, as there's also an "är du ensam i natt" somewhere in the course.


It just goes to show how old we all are here.

Try singing the song in Swedish, though. It's hard.


I've tried, too. Too many syllables in Swedish. Oh well.


Haha, I was thinking Tom Jones by way of Carlton Banks, so that's more 1990s!


Yes - even though it's technically incorrect English as it's a double negative.


Double negatives are actually grammatically correct.


It depends on who you're talking to. If you are looking at a formal guideline it'll say it's not correct, but those rules are based largely off of Latin rules which don't really apply to a Germanic language very well. Further, they are increasingly becoming out dated. I shouldn't have said it's "incorrect" because it's not really incorrect but if you wrote that in a school paper your teacher is likely to put a red line through it.


I would still disagree. Edit: Also, you said, "it's not really incorrect", which is a double negative. And that sentence is different than "it's correct".


It can actually be incredible useful to use double negatives. I have, on occassion, used "I don't know nothing about that" to avoid lying about a situation. ;-)


Churchill was a little confused with "...up with which I will not put". 'up' is not a preposition in that context, it's an adverb or particle (I've see it called both), so "This is the sort of English with which I will not put up" would be the strictly grammatically correct version of your sentence and far more natural-sounding.


Yes, it is definitely a double negative - we actually use double negatives all the time in English although we're not supposed to, or rather we learned that we weren't supposed to (we're also not supposed to end sentences in prepositions like I just did). I'm not saying it's wrong to use them but technically speaking its incorrect if you abide by traditional or standard English grammar rules.


Here's a more formal source. Ctrl-f "There is one type of double negative that is considered grammatically correct".


@heimaey No, "it's not unusual" does not mean "it's not usual". "It's not unusual" builds a positive sentence ("it's usual"), but in a less strong sense (i.e. weaker) than actually saying "it's usual". This case of the double negative was never even seen until 1762 - the 1700s. The example on the link I provided ("not unconvinced") is a direct equivalent to this one ("not" + "un" prefixed to an adjective).


That's fine. If you feel like coming back, please find a modern English grammar book that says all double negatives are grammatically incorrect.


That link just proved what I'm saying - standard English doesn't allow it. It's not unusual doesn't fall with in the exception you linked to - in correct standard English grammar it should be: It's not usual, but in every day English we use them - and we used to use them all the time until around the 1600s they got in in their head that it was wrong for whatever reason.


I can't reply to your other comment for some reason so I'll reply to this. I am not going to agree with you because you're wrong - in written standard english double negatives are a no-no. Look at any grammar book. However, in reality we use them all the time and these rules are likely to change just like we are kind phasing out whom when who is perfectly acceptable. I'm done here because you keep telling me that double negatives are fine and I agree except when you consult a grammar book and then it'll tell you no - and probably if you're in an English class they'll tell you no as well and give you a bad grade. Done.


I think double negative only applies to negative inversion


if 'vanligt' is 'normal', can't 'ovanligt' also be 'abnormal' as well as unusual?


No, ovanlig just means unusual.


I'd say unusual and abnormal have pretty much the same meaning, though unusual has more of a negative connotation.


I personally feel abnormal has a more negative conation than unusual.


So I'm wondering what you all think of "It is not strange." I know that konstigt and vanligt are not equivalent in Swedish, but I would say that they have enough overlap in English that it should be okay. Thoughts?


I think that is a bit of a stretch with ”strange”.


I also put 'strange'. In many contexts I would use unusual, odd, strange, weird interchangeably.


But Tom Jones sings "It's not unusual" ... the lyrics aren't "it's not strange" ;-)


So when possible (möjligt) is turned into impossible (omöjligt) by adding the prefix o- and the same is true for vanlig and ovanlig, does that mean it is a general rule? As in, you can change an adjective to mean the opposite by adding o-?


I think it is pretty general, though not really universal - there is no "obra" or "ovacker", as far as I know.


to be loved by anyone! (ba ba ba ba ba baaaa)


Att bli älskat av någon? I think it is... but please correct me if this is wrong or there is a better translation.


Älskad. You're supposedly a human being.


To be loved by you! Nice one, duo sweden lol

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