"Det är troligtvis en älg."

Translation:It is probably a moose.

December 16, 2014

This discussion is locked.


I gather this is a common problem in Sweden


A møøse bit my sister once...


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"


Why do you use ø instead of o? Thats weird


It's a Monty Python thing.


What is the difference between troligtvis and möjligtvis? Is it interchangable?


troligtvis means 'probably' and möjligtvis means 'possibly'.


When would I use troligtvis and when would I use förmodligen?

[deactivated user]

    How would one remember troligtvis easier?


    Thinking that is constructed from tro = believe. As Jan-Olav said:

    tro (verb) + lig (becomes adjective) + t (neuter) + vis (becomes adverb)


    I keep wanting to translate alg as elk (also known as wapiti/red deer). What is the word for elk/wapiti/red deer in Swedish?


    It lets me translate alg as elk. What americans call a moose is an elk in europe. And what americans call an elk doesn't exist in europe, but they're probably what we'd call deer.


    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).

    [deactivated user]

      And deer tastes more gamey than "wapiti" (I call them elk). Nice pics, BTW.


      It bothers me as well. Älg = Elk =/= moose...


      It's just because both the American name for the animal (moose) and the British name for the same animal (elk) are accepted answers. tulipantos already posted the correct Swedish name for the American elk: wapitihjort.


      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.

      [deactivated user]

        You nailed it!


        You're confused. The species you have in the US is Alces americanus and Alces alces is the one we have here. Still, alces is moose in US English and elk in British English as I said in my previous comment.


        Wow, I did not expect a conversation about chromosomal differences between moose families here.


        Wapitihjort or vapiti


        I've noticed there are a lot of words in Swedish that end with '..ligtvis' - does this actually mean anything in its own right?


        It doesn't have a meaning of its own but consists of three endings. 'lig' is a common adjective ending. The 't' is the ending for neuter and 'vis' is used for making it an adverb. So 'troligtvis' (probably) = tro + lig + t + vis.


        "It is most likely a moose" and "It is probably a moose" are correct, but "It is likely a moose" is not correct? Seems arbitrary.


        I have the same doubt, doesn't likely on its own work? and if not, why?


        well, I found the answer.... here it goes.... Now here comes the confusing part. When likely acts as an adverb, it needs a qualifying word in front of it. For example:

        We'll most likely leave in the morning.

        The paper quite likely has more than one author.


        In American-ish, we will say "It's likely." For example, one asks, "Do you think it's gonna rain tomorrow?" "It's likely."


        So are the words troligtvis, nog and förmodligen synonyms that mean 'probably'?


        Yes, in Standard Swedish. In the Swedish spoken in Finland, nog means 'definitely' or 'surely' :)


        Isn't it "den är troligtvist en älg" since "den" is referring to älg, an "en"-word?


        'Det' is here a formal subject and is not related to 'älg'. It's used the same way as in 'det regnar' (it is raining).


        Or “It is my husband”


        Det ar means "That is" Den ar means "it is". How can we say "this is" in Swedish? :-/

        • this = den/det här
        • that = den/det or den/det där


        I like how this would correspond to English: "It is trulywise an elk."


        Is there a pronunciation error in troligtvis or should the g be pronounced?


        In the “-ligt” ending, the “g” should usually be very slightly pronounced — almost entirely gone, but not quite.


        well in informal speech people just don't pronounce certian letters in word.


        "It probably is a moose"? Would this be different på svenska? Det troligtvis är en älg?


        It is what I wrote and DL rejected it, but I am objecting.


        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.


        Thanks, Jan-Olav, really fine detail here, and useful.


        My swedish friends tell me fömodligen is much much more common than trogligtvis.


        Why not det där? Does the "där" become redundant when next to "är" because saying där and är one after the other would be quite tedious.


        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.


        Interesting. I also heard that 'det' on its own can also function as 'that' but can it also mean 'this'? Or is that strictly 'det här'?


        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".


        At first I was thinking that this could be a Swedish horror movie trope (i.e. "you thought it was the killer/monster, but it's actually a moose). But really, I think a moose would be scarier than any movie monster.


        Can "nog" be instead of "troligtvis"?


        Yup, works and is accepted.


        Perhaps, it's a moose - says wrong (


        Well, troligtvis doesn't mean "perhaps", it means "probably".


        Why a moose! No Swede speaking English would call it a moose - it is an elk. Swedes generally speak British English - that is what is taught in school. A moose is a Scottish mouse.


        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.)

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