"Tv:n som vi har är inte ny."

Translation:The TV which we have is not new.

December 8, 2014

33 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/HelenCarlsson
December 8, 2014

https://www.duolingo.com/NattKullav1

With the new TTS, it is close to frovo now.

February 12, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Arnauti

The word tv:n sounds good with the new voice, but the intonation is very odd. The main stress of the sentence should be on ny, not on är as it is now.

February 12, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Yavor576312

What is the difference between vilken and som?

July 25, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/annalieyolo

'Som' is considered more informal, but it's acceptable to use it in place of 'vilket' or 'vilken' nowadays. 'Som' would always be used when referring to a person.

December 1, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/JacobLoMenzo

How would you say "as (verb) as you can"? Ex. "As fast as you can".

May 31, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/Berniebud

"Så (adverb) som möjligt".

"As fast as you can" would be "Så snabbt som möjligt"

June 1, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/JacobLoMenzo

Sorry, I meant adverb. Just a typo.

June 1, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/TJWphd

In this sentence, SOM needs to be translated as THAT, not WHICH, except in the less-common context of referring to a specific TV whose ownership has been flexible, and in that case, a comma is required between TV and which.

March 23, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/DarkLordBaudish

Is there any interpunction in swedish between the sentences? (I just ask because in czech there will be some)

February 5, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Zmrzlina

Between sentences, yes. But Swedish does not mark main clauses and subclauses with commas like English or Danish would.

February 5, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/boDjwyEj

And that practice, like use of the subjunctive, is rapidly disappearing.

April 25, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/boDjwyEj

And you, DarkLord, are a prime example of why DL shouldn't teach faulty English to non-native speakers.

April 25, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/mirabelxing

How is 'vilket' different from 'som'? Thanks!

October 22, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/EvelynOlson0

Why can't I say 'The TV we have is not as new'?

December 20, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/devalanteriel

"as new" can mean either "just like a new one" (som ny) or "not as new (as this other one)" (inte lika gammal). But it can't mean just "new".

December 20, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/Hazza.Svenska

So in another program (rosetta stone) spells tv as teve, is this wrong/ should it be accepted cause i wrote teven here out of habit

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/devalanteriel

It's perfectly fine - I personally prefer it, even - but if you got a "type what you hear" exercise, Duolingo will only accept one spelling even when there are multiple correct answers. It's been like that for ages. :(

January 14, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/Jean564934

That's odd to use a colon instead if just spelling it ten.

October 6, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/devalanteriel

Do you mean tvn? Just ten makes no sense at all to me. :)

October 8, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/viljam

"The TV we have now is not new" was flagged wrong?

February 9, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/devalanteriel

There's no "now" in the Swedish sentence.

February 9, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/LelandSun

Do I infer correctly from the wrong relative pronoun "which" used in the default English translation above that the Swedish language does not distinguish whether relative clauses are restrictive (AKA defining) or not, while such distinction does matter in how a relative clause is constructed in English?

In "The TV that we have is not new", the relative clause "that we have" is restrictive/defining in that it narrows down which TV set we are talking about.

A non-restrictive/non-defining relative clause, on the other hand, merely provides supplementary information, given that it is already clear what we are talking about and there is no need for further narrowing down.

In many other exercises in the relative pronoun section, the English translations can swap out a restrictive relative clause for a non-restrictive clause and vice versa and still remain valid statements under different contexts, but in this case it can work only one way. "The TV, which we have, is not new" would be in the form of a non-restrictive relative clause, but it doesn't make sense as such. In using a non-restrictive clause, we take for granted it is already clear which TV set we are talking about. Suppose we want to add some side information about its ownership, we just wouldn't say "which we have", but rather something like "The TV, which belongs to us (therefore we would know), is not new". Another correct use of a non-restrictive clause would be "This TV model, which we have, is not new."

When referring to a person, the relative pronoun "who/whom" can be used to introduce either kind of relative clause, and the distinction is made only by punctuation and prosody. When referring to an objection, though, "that" is used to introduce a restrictive clause, while "which" is used to introduce a non-restrictive clause. (The relative pronoun "that" can refer to a thing or a person in starting a restrictive clause, and it is never used in a non-restrictive clause.) So, in this translation we mean to use the relative pronoun "that", which might even be left out and merely implied (possible only in the case of restrictive clauses).

Edit: Upon research, I see that the avoidance of using "which" in opening a restrictive relative clause is considered by some not to be a hard rule but a recommendation for clarity. In any case, I would still like to get a confirmation that Swedish makes no structural distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses.

May 9, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/hr1982

By the way, Americans don't use "we've" that way. We say "we have."

March 22, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Arnauti

We don't use contractions when we write sentences, but Duo generates them automatically, so depending on what you input, you may be shown some unexpected contractions. As you can see, the main English sentence here is 'The TV which we have is not new.'

June 15, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/hr1982

I think the form I was writing about was: "The TV which we've is not new." I certainly say "We've been there before," but the other use sounds equivalent to "We've a new baby sister," which sounds extremely British to me.

June 15, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Arnauti

That's what I mean. They're automatically generated by Duo for both cases, we can't do anything about it. But it shouldn't be shown to you unless you input something that is similar to it.

June 15, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/boDjwyEj

There is a difference between "We've a new baby sister", which is fine with me although it does sound British or, in American English, a bit pretentious, and "The TV which we've isn't new". "We've" needs something more substantial to follow it than just "is" (or "isn't"). I doubt very much that would be acceptable English to most Brits either. I've had many British friends and acquaintances over the years and never heard a similar construction.

April 25, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/Kronoberger

Oh yes we do in the Midwest. We've been speaking like this for 70 years.☺

June 15, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/boDjwyEj

Sorry, I'm from the Midwest too (Michigan), have scads of friends and relatives in Wisconsin, Minnesota and South Dakota, and am about to turn 70 myself. Never heard such a thing in my entire life. Please note the difference between saying "We've a new TV" and "The TV which we've is new". Cheers

April 25, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/skrats

I use we've like above all the time, and I live in Pennsylvania.

December 11, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/boDjwyEj

Then heaven help you. :-)

April 25, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/boDjwyEj

Why all the down-votes I don't know, possibly from non-native speakers. You are absolutely correct in this context.

April 25, 2019
Learn Swedish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.