"Ska jag upprepa?"

Translation:Shall I repeat?

December 31, 2014

This discussion is locked.


In english this needs an object that is being repeated. "Shall I repeat" is incomplete without at least "it" attached at the end. Otherwise this sounds like you yourself are repeating, indicating some strange metaphysical or temporal feat.


Or giving additional artillery fire. For this reason, in the Army, the voice procedure is "say again", never "repeat", because "repeat" means "repeat the artillery fire", which would be an unfortunate misunderstanding :)



"Shall I repeat myself?" might better capture the meaning of the Swedish sentence. But yes, it needs something.


I agree, you can't just say "shall I repeat" in English, it needs something at the end. I put "Shall I repeat that" and was marked wrong. :-/


Same here except i put 'Shall i repeat it?'


I had to listen to this twice, so... yes.


How do we know if it's "will" or "shall"? There seems to be no difference.


this is a question of English, not Swedish I think. I learned to use 'shall' with the first person. "Shall I" is an offer to do something; "will I" is a question whether it will happen, sort of. Outside of questions, it's become more interchangable.


This is correct. ska and kommer att have different meanings in Swedish, and because of what you describe, shall is a better translation here. (will I would be a good match for kommer jag att).


I recall reading somewhere that years ago, it was grammatically incorrect in English to say ''I will'' or ''we will'', and ''I shall'' and ''we shall'' were the only correct forms. Now, of course, it has changed in English, but perhaps it's still like that in Swedish.


It doesn't have anything to do with first person or not in Swedish, it's just that ska and kommer att are two ways of speaking about the future, read more about them here: https://www.duolingo.com/skill/sv/Future


Why don't you say, "Ska upprepa jag?", because it's a question, so don't you switch the word order of verb and subject? Grammar is my weak point.


We do switch the order, the normal order would be Jag ska upprepa, so when we made it into a question it became Ska jag upprepa? It's the finite verb that is switched, ska (finite verb = the one that shows time), not the verb in the infinitive upprepa.


I'd like to add, two years later, that the idea of 'switching' can be misleading when discussing Swedish word order. The thing is that in main clauses, the verb goes second. And in questions it goes first. But it doesn't necessarily follow that anything is 'switched', because the subject doesn't necessarily go first in a main clause. It usually does in a short sentence like Jag ska upprepa because there's not much else to choose from, but in longer sentences, we might well have something else we want to put first, like I morgon ska jag upprepa 'Tomorrow I will repeat' – and then the subject goes after the verb. Because the only thing that really matters is that the verb goes in second place.


Oh, that makes sense! Thank you!


Why not ...shall i reiterate...then no problems with ...it / this etc


I would have presumed that was accepted. It's a fine translation, if posh.


Shall and should are not quite the same in English. Is this the same for ska and borde? This exercise had "ska" in the Swedish but only offered "should" as a solution in the word bank.


As you can see on top of this page, shall is the suggested translation.
should could sometimes also be translated as borde, but both are accepted since it isn't a one-to-one correspondence.


Shall is still used a lot in questions asking for permission or confirmation. - Shall I do the shopping? No, Bob will do do it.


What is the difference between "repetera" and "upprepa"? Is one more for repeating lines (ie Rehearsal) and the other to repeat something; an action or something said?


Yes, exactly like that. We use upprepa for the "do again" sense, and repetera for the "practice/rehearse" one.


Yesterday I listened (stand by) to somebody who was having a phonecall. His told his phonenumber through the phone, and then asked to repeat the number (so he understand it right), he used the word "repetera" as he asked to repeat it. But now I understand that this native swedish man is wrong and he had to use "upprepa"? I do not understand.


Yes and no... it's a but of a grey area, to be honest. Ten years ago, I would have said that he was absolutely wrong. Five years ago, I would have said that it's too colloquial but does exist. Today, I'm leaning towards that it's still colloquial but obviously gaining in acceptance.

If you use repetera like that in edited text, you will no doubt be asked to change it. But in everyday language, the border is much less clear.


Would somebody be so kind and clarify a bit the etymology (origin) of the word 'upprepa'? I always find it easier to memorize a word when I'm familiar with the story behind it. Thanks! :)


There isn't actually a completely obvious etymology here. The first part is easy: upp can serve as a particle to signify something being opened.

However, the second part is trickier. Ultimately, it comes from a Proto-Germanic root, in turn derived from Sanskrit that has many, many descendants in various languages. The original meaning was to touch or graze something.

Words that may be related include the Swedish word for "scratch", repa, and the archaic rappa which means to carry off and which may or may not be a cognate of the English "rape". We also have rippa in Old Swedish, meaning to "lift" or to "set into motion".

The more direct etymology is that it's borrowed from Middle Low German upreppen, with the same meaning - to bring something forward again.

I'm not sure if that actually helps at all, but unfortunately this is not one of those cases where it's easy to follow exactly what happened.


Wow, thanks! :) There is a complicated story behind it, but it seems pretty interesting. I learned something.

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