I'm under the impression that people generally say 'sa' instead of 'sade', is this true?
Yes, and also write. ”Sade” is only found in writing, and you may choose between ”sa” or ”sade” when writing, the latter being the older form. Same goes for ”lade” (lay), however, ”la” is still considered a bit colloquial when writing, whereas ”sa” is not.
In general the -de-ending of past tense verbs is usually omitted in speech.
Really, it's generally omited in all of them? For instance, would you not have to pornounce the de in talade, or regnade? How curious... So you would just guess the tense by the context?
Yeah, it’s very common to drop it. Usually the tense is obvious anyway since jag tala’ is for many people distinct from jag talar och jag har talat, but it is still always obvious from context what tense you’re talking in.
Dropping the 'de' is very common in Finland Swedish too. We usually say 'Vi laga mat' (we cooked). But in writing you have to use 'lagade'.
My girlfriend who is Swedish said that "sa(de)" is the only exception among verbs that can be shorten, both in writing and speaking, but all other verbs is recommended to use them in full form, also in writing and speaking. The same goes with "hade". She said that I shouldn't say "ha" and that people just don't talk like that.
Ha instead of hade is completely wrong. Nobody would ever say that or it wouldn’t even occur to someone to say that, because ha is the infinitive form.
To possibly elaborate more on what I said above and what your girlfriend said. Dropping -de in -ade is common everywhere. The verbs säga - sade and lägga - lade are a bit different because they’re irregular verbs and the a in the past tense is a long a as compared to the normal -ade ending where it is short.
The past tense of säga can be either sade or sa. Originally, sa was considered more colloquial but today it is the preferred way of writing säga in the past tense and sade can be considered a bit formal or old-fashioned, depending on the context.
The verb lägga is a bit behind säga and they’re not 100% comparable. Lägga is maybe where säga was 50 years ago or so. For lägga, the past tense is normally written lade and the spelling la is considered quite colloquial.
If you were reading a normal novel or a news article in Sweden you would probably mostly see sa and some sade here and there, depending on the author’s preference, but you would most likely primarily see lade and not so many la, it would be expected to be found maybe in dialogues or informal articles.
Please note that people sometimes pronounce the full -ade ending in regular verbs like pratade, but it is much more uncommon to pronounce the full ending in sade/sa or lade/la, they, and especially sade, are 99% of the time pronounced as sa and la, that’s why they can also be written this way.
So if I understood correctly, any verb with -ade, like pratade, talade, sade, lade, regnade etc, they just drop 'de' so they become prata, tala, sa, la, regna?
Correct. However sa and la are a bit different because they have a long final vowel, and they are accepted in writing. The first one is completely accepted and the latter one is somewhat of a colloquial spelling. For the other verbs, it’s incorrect to leave out the -de in writing.
Question: (and maybe this is taught further along the tree) When an English speaker answers this question, they're likely to say, "No, I didn't" or "Yes, I did" with (hear what you said) being implied. In Swedish there's no actual word that translates into the "did", it's implied in the English translation because that's what would be grammatically correct. So my question is, how would a Swede answer this question (other than just "ja" or "nej") that equates to "No, I didn't" or "Yes, I did"? Is this possible, or would you just say "Ja, jag hörde" or "Nej, jag hörde inte"? Tack!
I reckon the more natural-sounding answers would be
Ja, det hörde jag / Nej det hörde jag inte
Ja, det gjorde jag / Nej, det gjorde jag inte
Oh I know, you two got this as the listen and type kind of exercise. Unfortunately we haven't yet gotten the machine to accept writing sa for sade in those. I'll just disable that kind of challenge for this sentence, that's the only thing we can do atm.
The intonation in rapid and isolated speech is different for the verbs.
So when I read or hear people speak Swedish, I often see/hear "sagt". How does that form fit in the grammar rules?
It's the present perfect: I have said = Jag har sagt. English does not change the conjugation for this particular verb, but does in others, like DO. (imperfect tense) I did it = Jag gjorde det (present perfect) I have done it = Jag har gjort det.
No, because that would be har du hört vad jag sa in Swedish. When translating, we ask you to keep the same tense unless there's a special reason not to.
Would "You heard what I said?" be an acceptable translation? The meaning between this and the accepted translation aren't quite the same, but I'm not sure if the Swedish sentence makes a distinction.