"My eye feels irritated."
Translation:Mitt öga känns irriterat.
why is the verb "känns" written in this way ?, shouldn't it be: "känna" or "känner" ?
To form a passive form you add an -s, e.g. ”döda” (to kill), ”dödas” (to be killed). ”Känna” means ”to feel” as in to touch something or to feel emotions, whereas ”kännas” is passive and is in impersonal constructions when something feels a certain way to you. The present tense of kännas is känns.
- Jag känner mig varm. = I feel hot.
- Ugnen känns varm. = The oven feels hot (to me).
- Ögat känns irriterat. = The eye (i.e. my eye) feels irritated (to me).
- Jag känner ilska. = I feel anger.
- Bordet känns väldigt lent. = The table feels very soft (to me).
ok, i understand, but i have another question now: if "känns" is the present tense of "kännas", what is the tense of "kannas" itself. Is it the infinitive form in passive or what?
Sorry to make things complicated, but isn't this really a deponent verb? SAG 2 p 552-57 seems to think so.
I wrote it first as well but I got unsure and edited it since it has an ”active” counterpart which is semantically related. That makes it not really comparable to ”hoppas” or ”andas” in my opinion. But I trust SAG. Regardless it’s the same conjugation which seemed to be the main concern.
SAG says they can have a) no s-less counterpart, b) have one but with a different meaning, or c) have one which is semantically related, one example of that is träffa/träffas.
I think these verbs are generally fishy and I'm always a bit unsure about them. I'll try to read up a bit more on the subject and write a T&N about them. They're taught in Present 3, so it's best if we could call them deponent verbs so as not to confuse learners. They can never have an agent and their meaning isn't really any less active than that of lukta, verka etc.
is it necessary to mention in swe translation that it's my eye irritated? can I write "ögat känns irriterat"?
No, that doesn't really work. It's not obvious enough that you're talking about your own eye without context.
I'm feeling pretty dense on the different forms of irritated in this current exercise. So, 1) Han verkar irriterad. 2) Mitt öga känns irriterat. 3) Mina föräldrar blev ganska irriterade. In the third sentence, we have became or got, so irriterade looks like a standard past tense construction. But the first two sentences are both happening in the present and involve an emotional or physical feeling. Help! Tack
Well, irriterad is an adjective. Your examples have different forms because han is an en-word, öga is an ett-word, and föräldrar is a plural. But they still refer to the same thing - someone or something being physically or emotionally annoyed.
Yes, thank you! I should have seen that it is a matter of the adjective having agreement with the subject for en and ett nouns. But I'm still not clear about the plural example. Why wouldn't the word be irriterada, with the "a" added to make the adjective agree with a plural noun? Or is it a matter of "became irritated" being a past tense verb phrase and requiring irriterade?
Many adjectives ending in -ad actually take -ade as their plural ending. I'm not sure whether there's a rule, but there's no deeper reason than that.