"Det är troligtvis en älg."
Translation:It is probably a moose.
61 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian møvies: "The Høt Hands of an Oslo Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst Nordfink"
In the Great White North, we have moose (enormous, have a big hump on their shoulders, males have shovel-like antlers, like to hang out in water munching on aquatic plants), wapiti (a.k.a. elk) (large-but smaller than moose, males have pronged antlers), and deer (resemble wapiti, but are much smaller).
And deer tastes more gamey than "wapiti" (I call them elk). Nice pics, BTW.
The animals that North Americans refer to as moose (Alces alces) don't live in Britain (hence the descriptions and photos in my post that is presently below this comment). Incidentally, the word "moose" is derived from Algonquian languages. Until European settlers learned the indigenous name, they referred to moose as elk (British). [See EDIT below.]
What North Americans refer to as elk/wapiti (Cervus canadensis) should not be confused with red deer (Cervus elaphus).
The Swedish word, wapitihjort, is derived from the (North American) Indigenous word wapiti. It literally translates to elk-deer. And, obviously, vapiti comes from wapiti! ;-)
EDIT: Because moose names are extremely similar in many different Algonquian languages (e.g, moz in Abenaki, mus in Maliseet, mooz in Ojibwe, mos in Mohegan), the origin is not attributed to one specific First Nation language.
Regarding your reference to "alces alces vs alces americanus," There is still some debate surrounding whether Moose comprise one or two species. Groves and Grubb (1987) called them "semi-species". Boeskorov (1997) proposed that the chromosomal races of Alces alces were different species, however, Bowyer et al. (2000) cautioned that chromosome numbers might be a poor designator of species among large mammals. Based on cited sources that documented differences between Eurasian Elk and Moose, Geist (1998) recommended separation at the subspecies level (i.e., Alces alces alces Linneaus, 1758 and Alces alces americanus Clinton, 1822). Note that the Latin names of both "semi-species" start with Alces alces.
The word order of English and Swedish is different in this case. The adverb comes after the predicate verb so it should be 'Det är troligtvis en älg'. If you want to place the focus on 'troligtvis' it can come first but in that case the V2 rule is applied: Troligtvis är det en älg.
det där would have a stronger nuance of 'that' rather than 'it'. We would use it in situations when more or less pointing right at the moose. As a subject in sentences like this, we use det där less than you use 'that' in English, so that 'that' is an accepted answer when translating this sentence with det into English, but you can't translate 'it' into det där.
Yes, det can often be translated as 'that', especially if it's stressed just a little bit more. But it would rarely ever correspond to 'this' – we have two other words for that, det här and detta.
In this course, the following goes:
det can be translated as it or that
det här and detta are always this
det där is always that
In real life things can be a little more blurry, especially in the cases where you could easily use either this or that in English.
"Där är" actually wouldn't sound redundant or repetitive in Swedish, at least not informal spoken Swedish, as "är" is pronounced "e" in casual speech. So in an everyday situation it would actually be pronounced roughly "Deh dare (as in, same as the English word "dare") eh".
That's not really true. First, while British English is generally taught in schools, people tend to speak American English to a much larger extent since we get most of our English-speaking media from the US. Second, if you asked a large amount of Swedes what an älg is in English, you would overwhelmingly get the answer "moose". In fact, I would wager that the majority does not even know that there is a difference between "elk" and "moose", but everybody knows the word "moose". The word features heavily in e.g. tourism.
I lived there for 6 years. I speak to my Swedish friends regularly. I disagree that Swedes get 'most' of their English-speaking media from the US. British English is higher status in Sweden than US English - listen to any of their politicians speaking English. They speak British English, usually with excellent English accents.
I've lived here for much longer than that. Respectfully, I have no doubt that your friends speak excellent, British English - but that is very far from the norm. You're absolutely right about British English having higher status, though. It's practically a class marker - so of course politicians tend to gravitate towards it. And if your friends are well educated, I would expect the likelihood of them using British English to increase greatly.
It's also a matter of when people learned to speak English. Forty to fifty years ago, what you state would have been perfectly true. Thirty years ago, less so. Twenty years ago, American English was definitely taking over - and today, it's hardly a comparison at all. Sure, we do get plenty of British media - but we get so much more from the US, and most people under, say, 45-50 speak predominantly American English by large majority.
(And of course, what I say is grossly exaggerated - but that is unfortunately hard to avoid when trying to make generalisations over millions of people across ages, education levels, etc.)