"Han sparkade på en sten och nu har han ont i foten."

Translation:He kicked a stone and now his foot hurts.

December 23, 2014

This discussion is locked.


I wrote some more about talking about body parts here.


"He kicked a stone and now he's pain in the foot." does not sound like it has any business what so ever being a correct answer. "He kicked a stone and now has pain in his foot" ought to be acceptable since it's something a human being might actually say.


To "have pain in the foot" is not what an English speaker would say, is it?


You're right - It's not something a English speaker would say, but it's more correct than one of the 'correct' answers "and now he's pain in the foot" which is not something an English speaker would say either. I do think that one needs correcting.


More literal is not the same as more correct as far as us mods are concerned. You have to translate what the sentence means.


Pretty sure this one is due to the DL software creating contractions where it should not. The sentence would have been "...and now he has pain in the foot" before the software mangled it. And whilst that isn't the most idiomatic way to phrase it, it certainly is not incorrect.


You're absolutely right. We're supposed to write everything without contractions in the course editor, and then the machine generates the contractions, not always correctly. We can add them if they're missing, but we can't remove them if they shouldn't be there.


why is: "he kicked a rock and now his foot hurts" not excepted as a right answer?


If I had to wager a guess, because "rock" and "stone" are different (though absolutely, 100% synonymous) words. I think it should be accepted too and have reported it as well.


rock is an accepted answer. Although 'rock' and 'stone' clearly aren't ""absolutely, 100% synonymous", it isnt' all that easy to pin down the difference. I found a fun blog post about it here: http://geologywriter.com/blog/stories-in-stone-blog/rock-or-stone-is-there-a-difference/


Thank you for adding rock in as an accepted term! Perhaps I should have been more clear with my statement though: rock and stone within the context of the sentence ("something he kicked, which led to his becoming pained") are 100% synonymous.

Something to be aware of however: if you search Princeton University's WordNet database, which arranges items by synonym sets, the two words are so closely tied in the form of their first two definitions that they are listed together instead of as hypernym, hyponym, or even meronym:

S: (n) rock, stone (a lump or mass of hard consolidated mineral matter) "he threw a rock at me" S: (n) rock, stone (material consisting of the aggregate of minerals like those making up the Earth's crust) "that mountain is solid rock"; "stone is abundant in New England and there are many quarries"


I did a cursory check to try and find comparable words to "rock" and "stone" in Swedish, but was unable to discover anything except for "sten" - are there any other common words that you could see being plausible?

Thanks for your help and understanding!


I didn't add it, it was already accepted (it was something else that wasn't accepted). But I totally agree both work just as well in this case. There's a word klippa in Swedish which is a bit like 'rock', only more – the difference between 'klippa' and 'sten' is much bigger than between 'rock' and 'stone', klippa is only a big rock that is like a part of a mountain or so, never something you could throw at someone. The word is probably a cognate with cliff in English and there's a big overlap, but Wikipedia for instance lists klint as the counterpart to cliff.
And 'rock' in the geology meaning you mentioned ('material consisting of an aggregate of minerals') is en bergart in Swedish.
It's a hard subject :D


is på always used with sparka?


I would also love to know that.


This is a really good question that's had us contributors stumped for a while. But I'll try to answer now that we've had the chance to discuss it among ourselves.

Sparka and sparka på is not the case of a regular verb and a phrasal verb, because the particle isn't stressed. So that's ruled out.

Rather, the inclusion of "på" here triggers a sense of referring to a non-delimited process, as if kicking a stone wasn't just a single general action. This is not the same as the English continuous aspect (to be + verb + ing), but it isn't far from it either if used as a comparison.

The same thing can happen to other verbs as well. For example, jag skriver på en bok includes this sense of a process that isn't delimited rather that just referring to writing a book in general.

But in the sentence above, "han sparkade på en sten..." it sounds non-idiomatic to not include . I'm not sure as to exactly why, as we're dealing with tiny nuances that I'm just too much just a native speaker to explain properly.

I hope this reply can be of use to you, despite the limits of it. :)


Thank you so much, Zmrzlina, it does help. Thanks :).

I'm still struggling with the nuances, but that's probably to be expected on this stage. For example, I'd probably translate "Jag skriver på en bok" as "I am writing ON a book" :))).


Maybe you can compare it to "I'm working on a project". You're not really writing ON a book, you're working on it.


M.r Emil as we know the word...now...is a time adverb and come at the end of sentences but DUO says that is wrong


I've added Han sparkade (på) en sten och har ont i foten nu.

But please note that time adverbs do not always go last, and there are many translations here that require the nu in the middle.

[deactivated user]

    I understand that "Jag striver på en bok" means "I write a book". How would you say I write on the book"?


    In that example, the serves basically the same purpose as the "on" in e.g. "I'm working on a book". But you can still very well say jag skriver en bok to mean "I'm writing a book", and you can say jag skriver på en bok for "I'm writing a book" as well.

    "I write on the book" would be jag skriver på boken.


    @carlrendor: That would be jag skriver på en bok.

    [deactivated user]

      Thank you very much for your excellent explanation


      What about 'I am writing on a book'? Like physically writing on the outside of a book?


      how about "now he has pain in his foot"


      That is indeed also accepted.


      What is the difference between "smärta" and "ont"?


      smärta is the noun pain, while ont is the condition of being in pain.


      And if somebody will be hurrying, or lazy, or 'll forget it, and will invent a new word, like Min hand ontar, will it be understood?

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