For the purpose of this lesson, hade makes sense, but it sounds weird as had, and it would make sense with has.
No, in english, this sentence would just make more sense being said, I have not lived without you. It doesn't make sense past tense, because how can you not live up to a point, then be alive again, as in this sentence presuming whoever is saying this is alive.
Edit: I meant have, not had has, sorry.
I see. That would be Jag har inte levt utan dig in Swedish. You'd use the other sentence in contexts like this: I was only 17 years old. I had not lived without you (yet) and I didn't know how to deal with … whatever
I dislike this sentence for another reason: it's ambiguous in Swedish. It can mean either the situation I just described, or it can be interpreted as I wouldn't have been alive now if it hadn't been for you.
This sentence means something different than it would with "have" . Perhaps context might help: "I was at a loss when you left because I hadn't lived without you". On its own it's a little strange, but in context it's perfectly natural.
According to my dictionary, the past participle of leva is levat. Is levt more common? And is one word more formal than the other?
This is not the past participle, but the supine form, used to create the past perfect (pluperfect) and the perfect. The trusty SAOL says that levat is an alternative form for the supine, but it does not list any alternative to the past participle, which is also levt.
I think levat is more colloquial but it should work here too, I'm adding it as an accepted answer now.
Tack för förklaringen. I find linguistic terminology confusing from time to time. Sorry about the mishap.
I know, it's complicated. It usually doesn't matter, but I think in this case the SAOL are probably right that we sometimes use levat as a supine, but we don't really use it as a participle. Not that we use participles very often to begin with. :)
The same sentence could also mean I would not have lived without you, couldn't it?
That would be the unambiguous way of saying it in Swedish, but as I stated in an earlier comment on this page (look for where I say "I dislike this sentence"), this sentence can be interpreted that way too. So it's an accepted answer.
PS It's better and clearer to say it with skulle, but just hade is used too, especially colloquially.
I thought the sentence meant that until you and I were together, I wasn't really living. I found it very confusing.
I'm sorry, I understand the literal meaning of this sentence, but I cannot see in which context it could be used. :( Is there somebody who speaks French and can explain it to me? Tack
This English sentence makes no sense to me because it just does not sound right. I can't see anyone ever saying this. At least I got it right the first time seeing it, but still looking at it rather confused.
I agree that it would be difficult to imagine a context for such a sentence. We’d be more likely to say something like “I wasn’t truly alive until I met you” or something similar that can be heard in many a romantic comedy movie...
To make proper sense in English. Without you, I had not lived. How would that translate in Swedish? Utan dig, jag hade inte levt Perhaps.
Yes, this aspect of "hade" should be included in the notes. Many people use it in the sense of skulle in these types of sentences. It confused me when I first heard them since English does not generally translate the word as "had" in cases like this.