Translation:- Don't you understand? - Yes I do.
Where was "Jo" in any of the lessons? The section practice is the first I am hearing of it, and it's really throwing me for a loop.
Just remember that jo is used when the sentence is negative. -Förstår du?- Ja, det gör jag. -Förstår du inte?- Jo, det gör jag.
Thanks a lot! I have studied Swedish at school for over four years but I have never heard that. :D
Oh wow that's really helpful. I had no idea! (however can we get the coders to put lessons on the app? They already got rid of our "bonus xp" with the last update so it's more like the web version (only 10xp per round instead of a max of 15) but we need those lessons! I don't have a computer!
Perhaps they mean the information on the bottom of the page for each section on the web version of the site. Which I'm not sure why isn't on the app. It's text. How hard is that to code?
I don't know how old your comment is because the app doesn't show that, but in the years that I've used Duolingo they've done several 'big' updates / redesigns on the app and they still refuse to add those lessons. Quite frustrating :(
There are some (very useful) notes and explanations in the web version of duolingo.. but unfortunately they can't be accessed from the app for the moment, which can be a bit confusing. I also started with the app and only came lately to the web version, and "Jo" also came to me in a test like I should have known it ;p
Yes but, if you want, you can view them in a browser then switch back to your still-running Duo app. Here is the tips link for the Questions section but I think you have to be logged into Duo on your browser or come back to click the link a second time after logging in:
I kind of realized the meaning of this word and I think in my native Russian language there is not enough of this word. In colloquial Russian an answer to a negative question "Don't you do smth?" can be No with a meaning "No, I don't do smth" or "No, I do smth" or Yes with a meaning "Yes, I don't do smth" or "Yes, I do smth". This is very confusing. Although I'm not entirely sure that 'jo' would solve the problem.
English has the same problem. :) I was thrilled when I first encountered "doch" in German! It makes life so much easier!
is "det gör jag" a strict phrase used as a short answer? Like: Tycker du om öl? - Ja, det gör jag. /Nej, det gör inte jag. ?
Is there a comment or page where I can find a good explanation on the use of "det" in the context of jo det gör jag?
I'm not sure I understand. "Jo" means "yes," in response to negative questions, correct? And, "Jag" obviously means "I." But, what exactly does the phrase in the middle mean? And, does it change, depending on context? I always seem to get these questions wrong, and I seem to be missing the pattern.
Det gör jag = Jag gör det. det is the pronoun replacing whatever it is that 'I do', in this case 'understanding'. And as you see we can switch the wordorder around.
I have studied Swedish for six years and I had no idea that there is a word called "jo". I would absolutely say "Ja det gör jag" but i guess that is incorrect...
As explained above, it depends on the question.Jo is an objection to a negative question/statement, then 'ja' is wrong. But 'Ja' is correct when accepting a positive question/statement.
Yeah and I also had a question as to why the answer is backwards. Can you not just say: Ja, Jag gör
In the U.S. one would use either No! I do! or Yes, I do! So, that is what confused me. In the negative I would say No, I don't! Or, more rarely, Yes, I don't! (as in "Yes, you're right! I don't!") It's more impolite to say "Don't you understand?" as the asker is assuming you don't.
"Don't you understand?" is a pretty harsh question. How would you edit this to say "Do you not understand?", which is typically a more understanding question.
Is there a difference in "Don't you..." and "Do you not..." (except wordorder conventions) it has to be in the way it is pronounced? Right? That is the problem with written text, we don't know how it is softened by tone of voice and body language. Swedish "Förstår du inte.?" Is the normal way to write a question. Maybe it could be softened by just asking: "Förstår du?" But that is possible in English as well: "Do you understand...? Which expresses more helpfullness, doesn't it? But The sentence to be translated contains 'not', and should be so in both languages.
I think there's a difference personally. Imagine a classroom environment. If a student wants to ask a question and the professor says to them, "Don't you understand?", to me it implies that the student SHOULD understand and is therefore at fault by not understanding. Whereas asking "Do you not understand?" is more of a clarification.
Yep. But the excercise is not about ethics but the use of "jo" as a positive answer to negative questions as far as I get it =)
Honestly it mainly comes down to the subtlety of the tone used. If I spoke it right now I could show the difference between a "harsh" Don't you understand? and a "gentle" Don't you understand?
It's true that Do you not understand? can come across as less harsh, probably because of the formality if it. But you can easily make it harsh by the tone used as well.
Don't you understand? is perfectly fine in my eyes.
I think "Do you not understand? " is more harsh than the don't version because it sounds more condescending toward the subject
I agree. Actually I think both are harsh or non-harsh. It matters how you say it, both can be said meaning you are such a moron. "Do you not understand that?? (you are such a moron) "Don't you understand that? (you are such a moron).
Why "Förstår du INTE?" but "Har du INGA byxor?" Can I ask "Har du inte byxor?"
- inte = not
- inga = no, as in "no pants"
So har du inte byxor? does work, but it changes the meaning just a little. :)
Hmm so “Har du inga byxor “ would be “Do you have no trousers?” whereas “har du inte byxor” would be “don’t you have trousers!?” ? If so, would there be similar implications in the different phrases : the former being one of concern for the pant-less person, and the latter being of concern for oneself!! ?Lol
sometimes I wish duolingo had the option to learn Swedish in German because I am German and a lot of things make more sense with the German translation.
"Jo" is always translated into "Yes" in English. It's the other way around that is the problem, how you are to translate Yes into Swedish, since it it most often "Ja", but "Jo" only when you answer a negative question, that is when you want to change the expected negative answer into a positive. "Du tycker väl inte om glass? - Jo, det gör jag!" (But you don't like ice cream? - Oh, Yes I do!)
So if the question is positive,and i want to give a positive answer i would say ˝Ja˝ . However,if the question is negative,like in this example,saying ˝Jo˝ means that you do understand,or does it mean that you're confirming negative question and you don't understand ?
"Jo" means that I am contradicting your negativ question/statement, changing it into a Yes-statement
Good question. As a native speaker I just do. It is the normal position, corresponding to an English phrase like "No, I don't" (short and concise). It is possible to move inte around, but that also changes the stress, pointing out other important features. "You do, but I don't = Du gör det, men det gör inte jag", stressing ME, that it is I (jag) that don't do sth. As opposed to just saying that I just DO or don't DO sth.
This is an old question so I am gonna guess you don't need a reply now but for anyone else with this question here is a summary word order in main sentences as taught in formal Swedish grammar:
- First place (nb is often the subject but can be a TSP adverbial or often a whole subclause too! Also note that word order in subclauses is slightly different.)
- The verb... ALWAYS. The second place takes the verb that sets the tense ie the finite verb. This is the V2 rule that you see written everywhere and applies to pretty much all sentences except questions and commands.
- The subject if not in first place
- The satsadverbial eg inte, aldrig etc
- The infinitive verb/further verbs
- The object
- TSP adverbial - specify the time, place or other setting/situation (I honestly do not know exactly what "S" is meant to stand for precisely!
eg. (1)Förra året (2)ville (3)vi (4)aldrig (5)köra (6)bilen (7)till jobbet i Lund. "Last year, we never wanted to drive the car to work in Lund." (Sorry for the horribly convoluted sentence, was the first thing I came up with that involved all the seven parts!)
So because this sentence is a main clause and not a subclause, the "inte" (satsadverbial) must go after the subject: "jag".
nb The particle of the verb (if it has one) usually goes between 5 and 6... even if the numbering system doesn't give it it's own space! eg. Jag tycker inte om katter!
Also note that not every place will be filled in every sentence.
I actually hate this numbering system! It doesn't really help with the truly tricky stuff like the splitting of reflexive/particle verb and use of blimmin prepositions!!! haha I prefer to use independent rules that mean the same thing, and honestly just reading a bunch of Swedish texts/novels has been the most helpful of everything at familiarising myself with word order. However, I am sure that this is helpful for some people and if you end up taking a Swedish class at any point eg SFI, then it is highly likely you will have this number system drummed into your head whether you like it or not!!
Hope this helps someone :)
I sometimes wish I could copy your comments - this one helps a lot, but there seems to be no other way than to use pen and paper, else I would never retrieve it/find it again
Förstå = understand. (know = veta). Both English and Swedish, but especially English, use the do-formula, in this type of short answers, replacing the verb in the question, with 'do' (gör) in the answer. So it will be - Yes, I do or No, I don't
Would the phrase "det gör jag" only be used as a response to a question? or rather, when would one use "jag gör det"? a bit confused as to how why we are saying "i do it" rather than just "i do."
To begin with, gör requires an object in Swedish, so when there's no real object, we need to add det.
In a construction like this, det also helps us change the word order. We usually like to start the sentence with what is called the topic, i.e. 'the thing the sentence is about' or the starting point for the message. It wouldn't be very natural to put jag first here, that would put too much emphasis on jag – instead, we want to start out from what we're talking about, and so we refer to it as det. I hope this helps, it's hard to explain word order and information structure in few words.
So "det gör jag" would only be used as a response to a question, not as a standalone statement?
Yes, and as it is an affirmative, the answer would usually start with 'yes': "Ja, det gör jag." (or, if the person asking didn't think you did, it would be: Jo, det gör jag)
my English translation for "förstår du inte?" was "you don't understand?" This is a perfectly acceptable way to ask someone that in English. am I missing something?
You can create questions the same way in Swedish. We might do it a little less often, but it works exactly the same. Therefore, in this course, phrasing a question that way in English is only accepted when the Swedish translation has the same construction. Du förstår inte? is a perfectly acceptable question in Swedish too. If you're unsure about getting the intonation right, add så at the start and you won't be misunderstood.
Jo is in response to a negative... For example "förstår du?" "Ja, jag förstår" In that dialogue, the question was not a negative, so "Ja" was used in the response. However, in this dialogue, the question is negative, "Jo" is used to respond.
All these brilliant complex questions in the comment but nobody is asking the simple (perhaps stupid) question: is the pronunciation of ja and jo similar?!
Both start with "j" which in Swedish is a "y"-sound (as in yellow), but they have different vowels. "ja" has the same vowel as in "bath", and "jo" is more like the vowel of "moon"
So if I did understand, I answer "jo". What do I say if I didn't understand? "ja" or "nej"?
I'm confused. So if someone's saying "Jo det gör jag" to that question, does he actually understand or not?
The speaker does understand. Same if they had said Ja, det gör jag. They were refuting a negative question, in this case, so used Jo.
"Nej, det gör jag inte." would be used if the speaker did not understand, regardless of the type of question.
Is "jo" only used in response to verb negating questions (inte) or also for noun negating ones (inget, ingen, inga)?
For both. In the sentence here, it was a verb, förstår du inte. But we could also say something like Har du inga pengar - Jo det har jag (lit. 'Have you no money? Yes I do') where pengar is negated.
For the same reason it would be wrong to say "No understand", rather than "not understand".
so may I descern from this that "Nej det gör jag inte." would have been the negative? Thanks for the insight btw :)
Yes, but in different situations. You use jo in response to a negative question. And you use ja otherwise. But they're not interchangeable.
Is it usual to ask things in the negative in Sweedish? Sounds rude in English. And also, I remember reading that this is a very common answer, yet I wasn't able to find anything like it in forvo as to hear a native's pronunciation, is it actually used?
- No, not really. It can be rude or not rude depending on context, just like in English.
- Yes, it's very common.
Lots of good discussion on this one, and thank you moderators for your patience! I find it is best to look at the discussions from a computer, rather than a phone. Not all posts can be viewed from my phone, and I may ask a duplicate question. On my computer, I may find it has been asked and answered already.
I don't understand gör in this sentence. I get thd use of det etc. But why gör which means doing?
It's like in English:
- Don't you understand?
- Yes, I do.
It's the same "do" in both languages.
göra is "do", yes. Or "doing" - Swedish doesn't make a difference between them.
- att göra = to do
- jag gör = I do
The Swedish sentence also has an inte, meaning "not", so you need "don't you understand?"
I have found that "mark it up as an idiom, remember it and move on" works for me.
I wrote 'You don't understand?' and it was wrong. It's just another way of saying 'Don't you understand?' Not fair!
Both English and Swedish can force a statement to become a question by adding the question mark. Your are right that the meaning is the same. However, in this course they consistently expect you to translate questions into questions and statements into statements. Rewriting the sentence, instead of just translating it, doesn't get accepted.
The v2 rule says that the verb needs to come second, så det gör jag and jag gör det are both grammatical. But the idiomatic phrasing in Swedish is "that I do", so to speak.
The v2 rule says that the verb needs to come second, så det gör jag and jag gör det are both grammatical. But the idiomatic phrasing in Swedish is "that I do", so to speak.
I don't understand this sentance at all. Why is det in there? Why not 'Jo jag gor'. (sorry I don't know how to type the accents).
Doing is a transitive action in Swedish, so you can't just say jag gör - you need something to do as well.
Hence, "Yes, I do" translates literally into "Yes, that I do" to make it grammatical. It is understood to just mean "Yes, I do", though, as the phrase is so common. :)
Would it be rude if i don't understand and would answer only with "Nej." versus for example "Nej jag förstår inte"?
I would call the latter more polite, but I wouldn't call the former rude, unless your tone and body language make it so.
Yes, I do should probably be Jo, jag gör det Jo det gör jag seems Yes, THAT I do
Why is the answer "jo" and not "nej? What if the person responding didn't understand? They should accept both imo. :)
If the person responding didn't understand, you would not see yes or jo in the exercise. Your "what if" seems to overlook that there are two sentences to translate, which provide all the information.
You always use jo in response to negative questions. ja would be plain wrong here.
what is this Jo? just hit me with 3 errors already and never has been cover before this point...what is this guys?
This application follows a messy and incomprehensible methodology. I have been using memrise which is far superior and i have been able to correctly guess most exercises even when nothing is ever taught here strictly speaking just because i'm smart. There is really not much rhyme or reason to the methodologies in this application, there are also a number of errors.
Babies also learn language by "guessing" most words when nothing is taught, just because they are "smart".
Were you unable to find a dedicated forum thread for depositing armchair course critiques?
I have been going through the svenska course in this application for 2 or 3 months now. I always complete each lesson at least 2 times, as some specific things are impossible to learn in just one single go. Barely a couple of weeks ago i found out that the dumbbell icon in one corner of the screen is a link to practice exercises. It doesnt say practice anywhere, it never changes color or does anything, it is impossible to guess that that icon links to practice exercises as it looks more like the items for sale in this application.