First I think that is weird and makes no sense (does he never share with himself, or what?), and then I suddenly realize my own native language (not English, obv.) has nearly the exact same construct. Even the word "delar" clearly comes from the same root. That felt funny xD
By the way, a lone "delar sig", without "med", could mean "divides itself", like a bacterium, right?
Nice, that's also similar :) By the way, how would be "he shares something with me"? "Han delar med sig av något med mig", or is that too many "med"s? ;)
That would simply be "han delar något med mig". Only if you don't specify with whom he shares, you need this odd "han delar med sig" thing.
First this sentence was kinda hard to understand (the way it was constructed), but then I thought about it as " He never separates/divides himself of his food" because of your comment on how "delar" could mean divide, so thanks :D Ta en lingot!
Looks like it. I'd say the best Russian translation of "dela" would be "разделять", not "делить". At least in this particular sentence.
If you are Russian, the best way to think of this sentence is by translating it word-by-word "Он никогда не разделяет с собой своей еды" + the English "separate off". It's much easier than remembering "Он никогда не делится едой" and unravelling that then.
The thing that's helping me to understand this is actually that the Noun translation of "Delar" is "Part(s)"
By look at "Delar av" I can think of it as "Parts Off" (a phrase I've heard used in industry to describe "selling off" something piece-by-piece)
"Delar av sin" then makes more sense in my head as "Parts off itself" or as another person pointed out, "Divides" or "Divides from itself" or "divides off (from) the whole"
So "He never 'divides from the whole' his (own) food"
This is probably a very confusing way to look at it, but it makes the concepts more "solid" in my brain.
It's needed if "dela med sig" takes an object and here it means "from":
dela med sig av något = share something
It's also possible to use "dela med sig" without an object: Han delar aldrig med sig.
If you gave me this one at level 1, I'd have been permanently scared away from Swedish!
What is the difference between 'delar' and 'delar med sig'? Just a few lessons ago wasn't 'delar' by itself sufficient to mean 'share'?
Why on Internet I always find a link written DELA to share, instead of Dela med sig?
That's mostly just a set phrase I think. It's so much easier and shorter to write it that way. Just like tycker om might be the more neutral way of saying 'like', but on Facebook it's obviously gilla, simply because using tycka om would be so much more complicated.
But also dela med sig implies 'having something and giving part of it to someone else' and that link isn't really a perfect example of that, you don't really own it that way and don't really give part of it away, so it doesn't fit perfectly into the expression in the first place.
Speaking of gillar och tycker om... any chance you could elaborate on the differences of usage. I see that you consider tycker om as the more neutral phrase. At the moment I use them interchangeably and would love to understand the nuances here!
The difference is really very, very small. gilla is slightly more colloquial (it's changed over time so that in older literature and some set expressions, gilla can mean 'approve').
de delar huset means 'they share the house' as in 'they own it equally'
dela med sig means to share as in someone owns something and lets someone else have a part of it
'share' is pretty ambiguous in English
I have never found "share" to be ambiguous in English.
It seems very similar to Swedish.
"They share the house" = "De delar huset."
"She shares with me" = "Hon delar med mig" I think the exception is when it involves only one person. In that case, Swedish adds more words.
"He shares his food" = "Han delar med sig av sin mat"
If more than one person/group is mentioned, both languages seem to assume that "share/dela" is a reciprocal word, and "share/dela" + "with/med" is one-directional.
If only one person is mentioned, Swedish needs more words added to indicate that "dela" is one-directional. In English, it is not necessary - maybe because a person cannot share with himself, so when you hear, "He shares his food," you know for sure that it means, "He shares his food with others." It can't mean anything else. There must be at least two people in order for the word "share" to be reciprocal.
Does this make sense?
Okay, just got to remember that. It's just quite the uncommon phrase and sounds kind of idiomatic. Thanks for you quick response! :)
Yeah, these phrasal verbs can be a bit strange. But let's break it down a little more for the sake of clarity. Just "dela med sig" is the phrasal verb, meaning to share, whereas "av" has to come between the verb and what's being shared.
And to add some more complexity, the sentence adverbial "aldrig" splits the particle verb:
Han delar aldrig med sig.
PS. This holds for main clauses only. An example of a subclause:
Jag ska fråga honom varför han aldrig delar med sig.
As a native, the complexity of phrasal verbs never really occured to me until duolingo happened to me. :p
It probably can't get any worse though, a sentence adverb combined with a reflexive particle verb :)!
No. "Share something" is "dela med sig av något" and "han delar med sig" can be split only by an adverbial:
Han delar aldrig med sig
Han delar ofta med sig
Han delar inte med sig
Is this like "Never never shares (any) of his food?" The "av" is confusing me here, is it part of the verb construct, or could it just mean "...of..." like in my example?
9Delar can mean part (as in parts with, parted) so it is to Me like " he never parts himself with his Food " idk if this is right but. It Works for Me. You could think of it like "he never parts himself of his Food" its hard for direct translation. But try and think of it as a set phrase
When a poker dealer deals from a deck of cards, he divides it up and doles it out (shares it). Deal and dole are like delar.
Can someone break this down for me? Like, which words go together to mean "share"? And do any of the other words go together as a phrase?
Right now, it seems like a bunch of random little words thrown in a jumbled order. Just when I think I have it right, I'm wrong again. I have not gotten this kind of sentence right even once!!! I need help!!!
I still only get it partially... It's the sig that confuses me + it feels like he is sharing the food with himself.
"dela med sig" = share (put the stress on "med" here)
I can understand if this does not make sense :). It is reflexive, but still it means that you share with someone else.
Kind of, but "dela med sig" is a fixed expression/reflexive particle verb (where med is stressed) and "to share with oneself" is more like "att dela med sig till sig själv" in Swedish :).
In another lesson the phase 'Nu delar huset' came across. Now I see someone splitting a house in two with a chainsaw. But 'you share the house' was correct. How can that be?
"Nu delar huset" does not make sense and there's no such sentence in our course. You're probably thinking of Vi delar huset which means 'we share/split the house'. Those are different constructions: att dela med sig av något means to have something and then share it with someone else (like, give them a part of it), but att dela något means 'to own or have something together' as in shared ownership or sharing on equal terms.
i said 'he never shares his "own" food' and it was counted wrong. Any specific reason?
sin mat is the default way of saying this. Adding own in English puts a stress on it that isn't there in the Swedish sentence – we would say sin egen mat for that.
I thought sin inherently meant his/her own in Swedish, like, that that's the sense that the word implies? So, for example, Han älskar sin barn means He loves his (own) children? So why would that sense not apply to sin mat? I'm confused because when sin has been used in other sentences in the course, we've been allowed or encouraged to translate it as his/her own instead of just his/her.
I'm pretty sure it's never encouraged to translate sin as 'his/her own' in this course. We usually tell people just what I said above, that adding own puts too much stress on it. It might be in accepted answers in some cases, but then those cases are exceptions, it's really hard to be totally consistent with all those sentences.
I'm very surprised by that because I've been including own in my translations of sentences that include sin/sitt and have always been marked correct, and this is actually the first sentence in 11 levels where I've not been allowed to use it. I'm just not sure why this is the first time I've had duolingo outright reject including it, so it really seem to me like this sentence is the exception instead of all the other ones I've gone through, even if that's not the intended message.
I think I got the idea that including own was the preferred translation because there have been instances on the iOS mobile app where it's been included in the word bank and I've always used it when it's shown up, so I guess I took that as meaning it was a good translation? And it was on mobile that I first did the Possessives unit where it was introduced so I guess that impression stuck with me? But I know that the word bank options are not always the recommended choice for a translation but instead reflect a acceptable but not always ideal one.
Well now I know the correct way so I'll make sure to stick to just his. Thank you very much for cluing me in!
I took a look and it's really very inconsistent at the moment, so you could easily only come across sentences where both ways are accepted.
We should really try to make this consistent. It isn't a totally obvious case, one could make a case either way here, so I've brought it up with the others in the team. The (or one) problem is that we can't control how the 'other accepted answers' are used, just like you explain they can sometimes seem to be the main answer. In fact the only way you as a user can see what the recommended solution is, is on the top of the discussion page. But that isn't obvious to anyone.
And PS thank you for bringing this to our attention!
Share = dela med sig
Jag delar med mig
Du delar med dig etc
Note that med is stressed in the expression "dela med sig", since it is a (reflexive) particle verb.
Oh boy! As much as I'm trying, I still can't make sense of this structure, so I guess I should try to memorize it as a set phrase. Unless, this pattern of "(delar) med sig av" occurs with other verbs. Does it?
Some verbs are particle verbs, like tycker om 'likes' (stress on om: adding 'om' changes the meaning totally from just saying tycker) There are a lot of verbs like this.
Some verbs are reflexive, like sätter sig 'sits down'. This is a grammatical property of the verb, usually in verbs that are about something someone does to themselves.
And then there are some verbs that are both, like delar med sig or klär på sig 'gets dressed'. This type of verb isn't uncommon, so you'll probably come across them again. The most important thing is to keep in mind that a Swedish verb doesn't necessarily end where the verb itself ends: keep an eye open for these particles, because they change meaning a lot.
I'm having difficulty understanding this. Why is "sig" used here? It sounds as if what is being said here is "He never shares with himself of his food", seemingly implying he doesn't feed himself.
This of it like saying "He himself never shares his food (with others)." The "verb + med/av + sig" reflexive verb construction is fairly usual in Swedish. However the same sentence would not be translated to English with a reflexive verb. The same is the case with "Han sätter sig i stolen."
So would "han delar aldrig med oss" be a wrong sentace??? Världen är upsidedown right now
No, "Han delar aldrig med oss" is a correct sentence meaning "He never shares with us", though I can't tell you the exact grammatical reasons behind it. Also, the Swedish word for "upside down" is "upp och ner", spaces optional.