"I do not want you to suffer."

Translation:Jag vill inte att du ska lida.

December 10, 2014

This discussion is locked.


Why is "ska" in the sentence?


”Ska” forms the future tense so it’s literally ”I don’t want that you will suffer” which is how we express it in Swedish.


I want to add that this only works with the ”modal” future with ska, not with the ”predictive” future with kommer att.


So if you want to say "I do/don't want you to X" for any action X, you would have to say "Jag vill/vill inte att du ska X"?

Also, why do we write "att" before "du" (or whatever subject) and not before the infinitive X?


Take a look at the following English sentences:
1. I don't want him to suffer.
2. I don't want that he should suffer.
Sentence 2 is understandable in English, but English prefers sentence2. In Swedish, however, only the construction in sentence 2 is used.

Now consider the translation of sentence 2:
3. I don't want that he should suffer.
4. Jag vill inte att han ska lida.
In sentence 4, "att" corresponds to the English "that". In other words, it is a relative pronoun that introduces a new clause that has its own subject (here "han"). So naturally the "att" comes before the clause and therefore before the subject of the clause.

The Swedish "att" here does not mean "to", as in the phrase "to suffer" in sentence 1. In other words, it is not the start of an infinitive phrase. Is that what was confusing you?


I said "Jag vill inte att du lida" but it says it should be "lider" - why? Isn't infinitive?


You can say either Jag vill inte att du ska lida or Jag vill inte att du lider.
The reason your version doesn't work is that lida is in the infinitive, so it doesn't work on its own. With a verb in the infinitive, you always need an auxiliary that shows time.


I am also confused, in this other thread it had to be the infinitive for ...min pappa gråta. I don't understand the differences in grammar in the 2 sentences that makes 'gråta' have to be in the infinitive and "jag vill inte att du lider" cannot be in the infinitive. https://www.duolingo.com/comment/6084258


I can't remember the grammatical term for it at the moment, but it's the same in English really. For instance you say I saw him cry where cry is the infinitive, not the present tense. It's less clear in English but you can see it in the third person because it would be he cries if you said it like I can see that he cries.

So when a pronoun in the object form needs a verb, that verb is in the infinitive in both languages. Jag såg honom gråta 'I saw him cry'.

In the Swedish sentence here though, we don't have an object, we have a new clause instead, where it's du, not dig, so that du is a subject. So we're saying literally either 'I don't want that you will suffer' or 'I don't want that you suffer'.

We cannot have dig as an object of the verb vill because vill in Swedish doesn't work the same way as in English. As I'm sure you know, it's vill ha for wanting things (nouns), and vill is only used with verbs. So the whole construction want X to is always vill att X [ska + infinitive/present] in Swedish.

Sorry this got a bit long but sometimes writing short answers takes so much more time! :)


whats wrong with " jag vill inte du att lida"


Wrong word order. You have put the "att" in a strange place.

The word "att" (like the word "that" in English) is a conjunction used to introduce (begin) a subordinate clause.

Must be "Jag vill inte att ..."

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