"Yesterday I was nervous, since I was going to meet the king."

Translation:I går var jag nervös eftersom jag skulle träffa kungen.

December 29, 2014

This discussion is locked.


Why is it not "...eftersom skulle jag träffa..."?


eftersom is a conjunction that does not require the subject-verb inversion.
Check here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1879658


If found the explanation found in the linked source not very helpful. Is it because it is a compound sentence, where each verb phrase can stand on its own as a complete sentence?


Yes, that is correct. It works just like words such as och or men would here.


So, eftersom doesn't count as part of either sentence, and therefore both sentences follow the standard V2 arrangement?


Eftersom links the two clauses, yes.


Is "i går" really correct? I would say "igår". In writing, it doesn't make a big difference but it does in saying.


Both are correct, but the Language Council (Språkrådet) recommends writing them apart, so we try to do that everywhere in the course.


Even SVT uses igår, ikväll etc... I think Duolingo should no longer consider this a mistake!


We don't - we accept both spellings.


Yeah, as a Swede I have always written "igår" and not "i går". Newspapers and dictionaries write "igår" too, I think Duolingo might have done a small mistake here.


I should understand by now, but why is it "var jag nervös" and not "jag var nervös" tack. Min hjärna fungerar fortfarande långsamt!


v2 rule - the verb wants to come second, and i går is the first unit.


But why is it not the case with "När" as the first word ("När vi skulle åka...")?


när serves as a conjunction, so it isn't part of the clause, and hence vi is the first word in the clause.


Ok, that's what I thought. Thank you. What are the other conjunctions?


The main ones are och, eller, men. But there are a number of ones that are used to connect main clauses to subclauses, and när is one of them, but there are quite a few, probably.


Is there any difference between kung and konungen? I've seen both used


"Konung" is archaic.


Is that comma really necessary? Yesterday I was nervous, since I was going to meet the king


I believe in both Swedish and English it’s optional, but you put it there to show that the first part is a main clause and the second part a subordinate clause. In languages like German and Faroese, it’s mandatory with the comma there, and used to be in Swedish as well some 50 years ago.


Would not "eftersom att jag..." be more correct? In speech it is ok to skip the "att", but I think that it should be there for correct, formal writing?


Other way around - there's not supposed to be an att there, but it can be used in colloquial speech. Especially among children.


I figured one might say "I går kände jag mig nervös...". Does that have too different a connotation from "I går var jag nervös..."?


I suppose that's arguable either way - is feeling nervous the same as being nervous? I'm leaning towards "nyaaaaaaaeeehh... maybe not", but I'm open to changing my mind if enough people disagree. :)


Why is it wrong to begin with 'Jag var'?


Why is När a conjuction ("När vi skulle åka…") but I går a… well, I don't know what, but not the same, since it's "I går var jag…"


I går is an adverb, it describes when the verb took place. Think of it this way - if the sentence makes sense on its own, it is a main clause and the verb comes second: i går var jag nervös, (yesterday I was nervous) is perfectly valid on its own. När jag var nervös, (when I was nervous) doesn't make sense without an actual or implied context, so it's a subordinate clause and the verb comes after the subject.

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