What is the difference between men and utan? When would you use which? I was expecting the Swedish sentence to be more like "Han går inte, men han springer".
The difference in use between utan and men, which also translates but, is a matter of whether the content of the "but" clause is considered as something contrary to the content of the preceding clause or considered as something that partly has a similar meaning or function in the context for those involved. "That dog is not black but dark brown" would be translated "Den hunden är inte svart utan mörkbrun" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/utan)
So it sounds like you would probably say "utan" if you were saying "It's not black, but white", while you'd be more likely to say "men" if it were "It's not black, but very very very dark blue".
Utan is like the opposite of instead of. The word after utan is instead of the word before utan So in this case he is running instead of walking
If you don't know how to choose between men and utan,first try whether the 'opposite' of instead fits
"Utan" is used as a more of an opposite, whereas "men" is used as an any. A good example is, "Hunden är inte svart utan vit" because "Svart" and "Vit" are opposites, like walking(att gå) and running(att springa). With "men", a good example is "hunden är inte svart, men djupblå"
Ah, but "He goes not without running", word for word translation, means that he is running not walking.
Why is 'men' not used here?... or better yet, why is 'utan' used in this context?
Arnauti explained it well in another sentence. Utan can be 1. a preposition meaning without - Jag dricker te utan socker. I drink tea without sugar. 2. a conjunction which requires the condition "Not X, but Y", so there must be a negation before "utan". Jag älskar inte dig, utan honom. I do not love you, but him.
I think there is a difference. I would think of rather as a more preferred state and would translate it to "hellre" or "snarare".
"Jag springer hellre än går." - "I rather run than walk."
"Det är ingen igelkott, snarare en sten." - "That's no hedgehog, rather a stone."
"Det är ingen igelkott utan en sten." - "That's no hedgehog, but a stone."
The last two sentences are quite similar, but there is a difference in certainty. In the last case the speaker is certain that it is a stone, whereas in the other he think it looks more like a stone than a hedgehog, but it could still be something completely different.
In swedish, how would you say, "he doesn't go without running"- that is what i thought was the correct answer here.
"Han går inte utan att springa" You need to use "att ____". The way the used it is in present tense, therefore showing that he is currently running, but to say "att springa" means that he isn't currently running.
I sometimes still make the very Dutch/German mistake of thinking that springer means jumping. :)
It's a bit of a false friend, though - we have sprinta in Swedish as well.
It depends on the context. In the sentence above "Han går inte" has to mean "he is not walking" or "he doesn't walk". This is because the ending "utan [han] springer" tells that he is really running which wouldn't make sense to replace most translations of goes with.
Just "Han går." however would translate to "He is leaving" or "He is walking".
On the other hand "He goes..." would often be translated to "Han åker..." as in "Han åker buss till Stockholm" - "He goes by bus to Stockholm". But also here it depends on the context.
Here are I use "Han går" in a few different contexts
"Han går på fest." - "He attends a party." or "He goes to a party"
"Han går till festen." -"He is walking to the party."
"Han går på fester." - "He attends parties."
"Han åker till festen." - "He goes to the party"
"Han går an" - "He is acceptable"
"Han går in" - "He enters", "He goes inside" or "He fits" (size-wise)
"Han går ut" - "He is going out", "He goes out"
"Han går upp" - "He gets up", He goes up"
"Han går under." - "He goes to his doom."
"Han går under bron" - "He walks under the bridge."
Why did it say "without" was the wrong translation for "utan"? I said "he does not walk without running" and it marked a couple things wrong, and "without" was one of them.
How would I say "He does nothing but run?" Would it be "Han går inga utan springer?"
A more idiomatic answer would be "han gör inget annat än springer" or "han bara springer hela tiden". For example, if you are trying to keep an eye on a two-year-old.
maybe: "han gör ingenting utom springa". at least there is no reason to have a "gå" (=go/walk) in the sentence.
When are commas used? I can't remember many from past exercises, only for lists (april, maj och juni)
I don't understand why it is necessary to include "som" after svarar. Any tip?
I wish they included 'He is not walking, rather he is running." It sounds more natural to me (and clears up the difference between 'men' and 'utan'.)
Arnauti explained it well in another sentence. Utan can be a conjunction which requires the condition "Not X, but Y", so there must be a negation before "utan". Jag älskar inte dig, utan honom. I do not love you, but him. Or as in this sentence: Han går inte utan springer. He is not walking, but running.
Men = but Why utan is but? Utan could not be only without? Whats the difference ?
Use /utan/ as but if someone is not doing one thing but is doing another thing, like in the sample sentence: "not walking, but running".
Question: I've seen similar Swedish sentences now that have commas. Is the comma in this sentence structure optional? (It helps me visualize the logic flow >_>).
Well, it works the same as in English - you don't need to repeat the subject in a similar sentence. :)
Thanks , I just recall that someone write that you alias need subject in swedish. But I Realized it has to be jag because its utan and not men
are you sure? in my understanding that would have to be "Han går inte utan att springa. " (direct english translation with utan=without considering grammar would be "he doesn't walk without runs" where "runs" is the verb 3rd person singular present.)
Sorry, I'm really sleep-deprived and I wasn't paying attention. I meant the English phrase. It does indeed not work as a translation at all. Thanks for the correction!
Could this sentence possibly be translated as: "He does not go without running", or "he is not going without running"?
Since Swedish doesn't use the present participle ("running") like that, we have to change the sentence construction for the same meaning, e.g. Han går inte utan att springa. Hence, the sentence here cannot have that meaning.