"Jag kommer att ha ringt henne innan du kommit dit."

Translation:I will have called her before you have arrived there.

January 4, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Why is "innan du har kommit dit" wrong ?


It’s perfectly acceptable. The ”har” can be left out in certain contexts in more formal writing and sometimes in speech as well since the ”kommit” shows the tense on its own.


So the "kommit" here implies the tense "ha kommit"? If all you need it the supine ending in the verb, why put "ha" in ever?


It used to be common a few hundred years ago to exclude the ha in some certain types of clauses. It has now recently entered the spoken language as well to some extent, but you cannot remove it everywhere and you can still always include the ha.

  • 2501

Why does it need to be 'have arrived'?


It doesn't - other versions are accepted, see above.


Atleast i listened to the queation ten times,but with regular speed even for one time i could not hear ...henne.m

  • 2573

It is there, but I think it's hard to hear the "-e" of "henne" before the "i-" of "innan". To me it sounds a bit like "...ringt hen-innan..."

My best advice is just keep practising. I find listening the hardest aspect of a language, but I can definitely feel progress with Duo, over time :-) Things that once sounded impossible now sound like clear words, especially with longer sentences where I used to just get lost!


I was going to say exactly the same, that "henne" is very hard to hear. I guess once you already know what the sentence is saying it's like your brain hears it, but when you don't know it's almost impossible to distinguish what it says there.


I hear it very clearly. I'm sorry, I don't know what else to say. It's definitely there.


It's there but I certainly gets lost in the sentence. It sounds like 'he' rather than 'henne'. I would never have guessed what it was unless i already knew it was there.


How would you say: "I will have called her before you arrived there"


That should almost be the same sentence?


Why would "I will have called her before you get there" incorrect here?


That'd be kommer in Swedish - we're a bit more adamant about not changing tense here than in real life.


I can't imagine saying that sentence as it is translated into English. It sounds stilted to the point of being used to mock someone as a "stuffed shirt". Sigh, does that make me a grammar barbarian even if I cringe when people use "less" for countable items?


I have to say that I am still baffled even after reading all the comments. I wad marked wrong for I will have called her after you arrive there. I get that after you have arrived is the more complete or technically correct translation but dont understand why if you can leave the "have" out of the Swedish before kommit you cannot leave the "have" out of the English translation. I appreciate that arrived must change to arrive , but to me as a native English speaker the two sentences mean the same thing.

  • 2573

I think you swapped "before" to "after" and that's what Duo was marking wrong. "Innan" is "before". As for the tense issue with "arrive" or "have arrived", I agree that the English sentence carries exactly the same meaning either way, but Duo is picky with keeping tenses the same between languages if at all possible. I suspect that Duo's Swedish sentence is the natural way to say it in Swedish, but I can't say for sure.


Can someone explain this sentence to me? I don't get why the second part is in past perfect if we're talking about the future...

  • 2573

It isn't really, it's the same as the other sentences in this section. If you consider "Du kommer att ha kommit dit" / "You will have arrived there" I think the future perfect tense is clearer. The second part in the whole sentence is just the "kommit dit" bit of this shorter sentence and the "kommer att ha" bit is implied by the first part.

The English version is a little similar. In "I will have called her before you have arrived there" there's a sort of implied "will" as in "you will have arrived there".


Are we allowed to do this in English?

PS I obviously meant present perfect, not past perfect (which is used to describe past actions anyway).

  • 2573

Not sure which bit you mean. "You will have arrived there" is perfectly standard English, as is Duo's English version of the full sentence. It would sound very odd if you put the second "will" into the full sentence, but I'm not sure if it's technically wrong. If you swap the order of the parts it's fine: "You will have arrived there after I have called her". (Although not a close enough translation for Duo to accept, I'm sure).

I was trying to explain that both parts are talking about the future, but some words are missed out because the second part depends on the first part. Sorry if that's not any clearer.


I don't understand the sentence. Why not "I would have called her before you have arrived there."


kommer att is the future tense, so "would have" doesn't work.


.. innan du HAR kommit dit. It is ok to remove "har" when speaking, but should be used in written swedish.


I'd say it's perfectly acceptable even in very formal context, actually.


Ok - thought it was not okay to leave "har" out in the formal context. You learn something new every day.


What exactly future perfect means? i can not figure out! is there such tense in english?

  • 2573

The 'future' bit means talking about something that hasn't happened yet, and the 'perfect' bit means talking about the time after that thing has happened and it's over, so further in the future.

The simple future is something like "She will tell me when she gets the letter".

Future perfect is something like "She will have told me by the end of the week". The 'perfect' bit is "have told", which is formed the same way as the past perfect tense (e.g. "I have told you before!").


I will have called her before you get there Why not? Getting seriously tired of the inconsistency in application of literal vs idiomatic translations in later lessons


Is the reason that it is OK to leave the "ha" out before "kommit" because "ha" was already used earlier in the sentence before "ringt"?


No, it's because "innan du (har) kommit dit" is a subordinate clause, where the auxiliary har is optional and often omitted, particularly in written Swedish. (cribbing from Wikipedia)

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