"Han simmade under vattnet."

Translation:He was swimming under the water.

December 23, 2014

This discussion is locked.



That was embarassing.


Me too.... I did not know :o


As a native English speaker I've heard of "swimming underwater" but never "swimming under the water". To me, the latter would suggest that you're swimming in some other substance that lies underneath the water, like in the sand or something. :S


Native English speaker. I have used both "under water"& "under the water". It doesn't sound FISHY to me. (Pun intended)


It could be specific to something like a pool or an ocean. The context could mean that someone wanted to see the swimmer at all times and they are specifying that they went under the water, to mean out of sight.


That would still be someone "going underwater," "going under the water" just sounds unnatural


I was going to moan that "He swum under the water" should have been accepted, but then I looked up the difference between swum and swam. Turns out even as a native British English speaker I can improve my English via learning Swedish!


same! I was shook


Swimming under water is fine in the uk too


Never heard swimming under the water before.


"Swimming underwater" before then. They have to accept "swimming under the water" since that's the literal and grammatically correct (if somewhat unidiomatic) translation of the Swedish.


I think it's the first time of my life I see the word swam


I saw it a plethora of times


Is this correct as well?? I mean swam


'simmade' means 'swam' or 'was swimming'


Earlier Swedish had the same conjugation: simma, sam, summit but in modern language it is simma, simmade, simmat.


I typed 'swam' first, but then it looked so strange that I wrote 'was swimming' instead.


Is there a way of differentiating in Swedish between "swam" and "was swimming"? Or does "han simmade" encompass both tenses in English? Thanks!


As far as I know it encompasses both meanings, I might be wrong though.


"simmade" can mean either "swam" or "was swimming"


It's just like with the present tense, that "Jag går" means both "I walk" and "I am walking. "Jag gick" means both "I walked" and "I was walking."


Dear friends,as much as i know of these two words.....divind is going down and deep in the water and changes in depth is the most factor but when you swim under water water you normally swim straight ،،،،، of course in the pools when you jump from from platforms that is diving too


Yes, everything you say is correct.


You can swim under THE bridge or even swim under THE boat but to swim under THE water is impossible. That's all mud or sand or rock or tiles. You swim, swam or have swum UNDER WATER. C'est tout!


I had the word bank up and it did not offer me the word "the" to complete the translation, so I too had to put "He was swimming under water."


Surely "he swam under the water" or even "He swam under water" is correct - I get that the Swedish should be correct, but so should the English. This is the difference between the simple and the continuous form of the sentence


So, no imperfect tense in Swedish. The simple past is used? simmade = swam simmade = was/were swimming

Much simpler.


Craig, I'm not sure your terminolgy is correct. As I understand it, the imperfect is the simple past -- two different names for the same thing.

I think what you mean to say is that Swedish has no past progressive tense (-ing form).


"was/were swimming" is not simple past in English.

Foreign language teacher here for 46 years in both French and Spanish. My terminology is correct for translating into English. The two languages distinguish between the simple past and the imperfect which is nearly always translated differently from the simple past in English.

"The Past Simple tense, also called the Simple Past, is used for past actions that happened either at a specific time, which can either be given by a time phrase (yesterday, last year, etc.) or understood from the context. Regular Verbs add -ed to the base form, or -d if the verbs ends with -e."

French: j'ai regardé = passé composé (I looked at, I have looked at)

Je regardais = imparfait (imperfect in English) I was looking at, I used to look at, I would look at (in the past, different from conditional)

The translations above of the imperfect use helping verbs which show that imperfect in distinct and not simple past.

Spanish: Miré = pretérito

Miraba = imperfecto

The (simple) past is distinct from the imperfect in most European languages. Spanish also has a past progressive tense or rather imperfect progressive which is distinct.

Yo estaba mirando = I was looking at

Miraba = I was looking at, I would look at, I used to look at.

The two tenses are distinct. In Swedish however they appear to be the same both the past and the imperfect.

From the internet: "L'imparfait (the imperfect) is a French past tense. It describes states and actions that were ongoing or repeated in the past. The imperfect can correspond to the English simple past tense, but also to structures such as used to and would and even the past progressive."

So you would be correct some of the time, but rarely. More frequently you would NOT use the simple past in English to translate imperfect tense.


Thanks for the clarification. Is it fair to say that "preterite" is (roughly) the same as the English "simple past"? Perhaps that is what I was thinking of.


To be clear, I was referring originally to the English translation, and not to how native speakers would perceive the tense in their language. Apparently, there is no specific tense in Swedish that is translated ONLY by the imperfect tense in English as with French and Spanish.

Yes, preterite is English "simple past." Imperfect in French, Spanish etc. is normally not "simple past" in English (was/were looking, used to look, would look (not conditional)).

The fact that Swedish does not have such a tense GREATLY simplifies Swedish grammar by comparison to those languages. There are times in both French and Spanish that using one tense over the other changes the entire meaning. For example:

Je savais (I knew (factual))

J'ai su (I found out)

So glad to not have to deal with that in Swedish!


Reading in Wikipedia, I have discovered the source of my confusion about "imperfect" vs. "preterite":

"In German, Imperfekt formerly referred to the simply conjugated past tense (to contrast with the Perfekt or compound past form), but the term Präteritum (preterite) is now preferred, since the form does not carry any implication of imperfective aspect."

In any case, I too am grateful that the Germanic languages I've looked at (Swedish, Dutch, German as well as English) do not include the elaborate tense and aspect structure of the Romance languages.


Can you say "Han simmade undervatten."?

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