"I am writing the book of the century."
Translation:Jag skriver århundradets bok.
34 Comments
896
You just can't say that. We don't use av nearly as much as you use of in English. Just like you say a cup of coffee and we say en kopp kaffe.
As a native English speaker learning his second language, that just feels so wrong. The way I have been parsing through the language structure so far, is thinking of it as Olde English (pre-chausser), that tends to help a lot.
I remember one a while back that said "en kopp av te". What separates that from "en kopp kaffe"
- 896
It's en kopp te. If you say "en kopp av te", you'd be speaking about a cup made out of tea :)
- 145
Should not "the book" also have the definite identification in Swedish?
It's the same in English as well, I suppose. It's fairly nonsensical to say, for instance, something like "I found her the doll." or "The dog's the toy is missing."
- 145
I don't think your examples in English encompass my original question well.
For example: 1)I am writing the book --> 1a)Jag skriver boken (easy)
2)I'm writing THE book of THE century
Is equivalent to
3)I'm writing THE century's book So we could have in Swedish:
2a)Jag skriver boken av århundradet ( if I was translating the first example literally)
Or
3a)Jag skriver århundradets bok ( for the second example in English)
Now, is the translation 2a) valid and palatable in Swedish?
You're replying to a comment that is over four years old... :)
But as for 2a, no, that's not grammatical. Swedish doesn't have the "of" construction for possessives. Hence, århundradets bok corresponds equally well to "the century's book" and "the book of the century", and idiomatics will dictate which one is the better translation into English.
- 145
haha snart att bli århundradets kommentÄr. Känske kan jag återkommer varje 4 år. :P
But in THAT sentence the "her" is not a possessive: it's an indirect object.
- 896
If you mean årtiondets bok, that would be the book of the decade. I agree that would be enough of an achievement to be proud of :)
If you mean genitive + noun in the definitive form, we don't do that. When something is 'owned' by another noun in the genitive, it cannot be definite. It's the same in English really, you don't say the woman's the house or even my the house.
Oh, oh, "bok", of course. The deal was, it showed both "årtiondets" and "århundradets" as possible translations for "of the century". Got me confused there.
Isn't "the book" the definitive singular? So "boken" and not just "bok" amirite?
It comes after a possessive (of the century) so you don't have to write the definitive form. If Im not wrong the same applies, for instance, when you say the green book (Grön bok, if Im not wrong) :)
Would a literal translation back to English be "I write the century's book"?
Tack! The first time I encountered this phrase was in a challenge to type the Swedish, so it threw me for a loop.
- 1091
So now I see you are introducing new words in the "Strengthen" section.
- 896
This is a general feature of how Duo works and not specific to the Swedish course.
"jag skiver bocken om århundradet" was marked wrong. what would be the translation of my answer in english? thanks!
I think that would be 'I am writing the book about the century'. Except that you mis-spelled 'boken' :)
Två frågor :
Men, om bok är en en-ord, varför inte århundraden eller bara århundrade?
Är århundraden bara på plural?
Why it isn't boken here? The hardest thing for me in any language are articles. Pls help.
Hi, it's because when you write the possessor (in this case "of the century", in other may be my (min) or your (din) or our (vår)) you don't have to write the definitive article of the word :)
How should I divide this? århundradets=of the century år (year) hundradet (century) s (of). Is it correct and it makes sense to understand such a long word?
