I like how it comes from "to hear"/"to listen" just like German gehören, how does that make sense?
I will take a wild guess. If your property is your livestock maybe they are listening to your call?
it's like "gehören" in German - the same root and the same meaning, even for the prefix :) <3 svenska!
As a Turkish who does not know German, these words beginning with 'till' such as 'tillsammans', 'tillbaka', 'tillbringar', 'tillhör' does not make much sense to me. Could anyone elaborate on the meaning it adds to the words if there is any?
One thing i know, is that "till" can mean several things. One if them is the same as the english "to", with one "o".
Thanks! I also know that prepositional meaning but am not sure what it adds when used as a prefix.
In most cases it adds something similar. After all, in English you say belong to, so you have the to there too. And tillsammans is together.
tillbaka is like 'to' + 'back' somehow.
No. tillhör is 'belongs to' (someone or something) but hör hemma is like 'has its home', or 'is supposed to be' or something like that.
Kniven hör hemma i köket - 'The knife belongs in the kitchen'
Kniven tillhör mig 'The knife belongs to me'
I fear I have to agree with tomdwil. There are always many ways to express something and even though you could just go ahead and only accept the literal translation, in my opinion this severely impacts learning by association. If the feedback to a contextually correct translation is negative this association - though correct - won't last.
I really would like "The book is mine" to be an accepted answer.
I think there are different types of 'literal translations'. For example, some users want us to allow literal translations for expressions like ha på sig kläder 'wear clothes'. A literal translation of that could be 'have on oneself clothes'. But when we say Jag har på mig en tröja in Swedish, that doesn't really translate into 'I have on myself a sweater' in English, because the languages don't work the same way. So in that sense, literal translations aren't what we're aiming for at all.
The book belongs to me however, is not a literal translation in that sense. It's just an exact translation of what the Swedish sentence actually says. If you rephrase it into The book is mine, you're doing exactly that – you're rewriting the sentence. And there's really no very good reason to do that in this case. It's not like it's any more unnatural to say 'The book belongs to me' in English than it is to say Boken tillhör mig in Swedish. As far as I can honestly tell, they're pretty much as perfect counterparts as any translations can be.
Also, the way courses are built here, we're pretty much teaching words after all. The association we're trying to get into your head is the same one that is in our heads: that tillhör and 'belongs to' correspond to one another. That's our goal here. Giving users maximal freedom of expression is not. This is the reasoning behind our choice of accepted answers here.
I thank you for that very precise explanation about the goals of Duolingo and the intentions behind the phrasing.
Though I would still appreciate a little more freedom in the expressions (not only here but especially in cases with "this/that" confusion) I also accept that it is not the intention of the course and yet again beyond the scope of the project.
Thank you again for explaining it in that way :) - and of course for the course.
I find that when I know the literal translation it helps me remember the words better. Its like an "ah ha!" Moment and i figure it helps with understanding better swedish grammar also.
I agree, I personally find it hard to learn complex expressions in other languages if I don't know their literal meaning. In the course, you can usually find out what the literal translations would be (when don't also happen to be perfectly idiomatic translations, like here) by looking at the hints for each word. Or just ask in the forums if you aren't sure.