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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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!!!
"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 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!
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.
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."