"After his wife had died, he never got happy again."
Translation:Efter att hans fru hade dött blev han aldrig glad igen.
'Efter att' marks the beginning of a subordinate clause, but I think it is safest just to learn it as a 'temporal' expression. -- Because if we compare it with "Before his wife died" = "Innan hans fru dog", we see that this expression takes no "att", here it would be wrong. Anyone with a good explanation?
I looked in Wiktionary and find that "efter" in Swedish can be Proposition while we know that "after" can be a Conjunction as well. Therefore when connecting a clause to the main clause, we don't need another conjunction in English but we need one in Swedish.<h1>personal insight. feel free to correct me if anyone thinks differently</h1>
Not just maybe. For me, "get happy" isn't just clumsy English, it isn't English at all. Not to mention "after his wife had died"... A native speaker would say something like, "After his wife died he never found happiness again", or "Following his wife's death he was never happy again." The whole sentence should be junked.
I actually think this sentence has been deleted already, since I can't load it in the admin interface. However, Duolingo has a bug where supposedly deleted sentences will still show - we call them ghost or zombie sentences. Very annoying. This would be why we tend not to delete even the bad sentences, since a crappy one with proper explanations is at least better than a crappy one without proper explanations.
It’s sin when it refers back to a person that has been mentioned earlier in the clause. The first thing introduced here is ’his wife’. We don’t know who ’he’ is. The word ’he’ isn’t even mentioned in that clause (i.e. the part before the comma). Therefore it can’t be sin. You could however say:
- Efter att han förlorade sin fru[…] (After he lost his wife)
Because here the sin refers back to han.
Because of this, it can be useful to learn what is a main clause and what is a subordinate clause. The word att usually introduces a new clause, neutralising the sin-connection:
- Han tycker om sin fru. (He likes his (own) wife)
- Han tycker [att] hans fru är vacker. (He thinks [that] his wife is beautiful.)
No, it should still be hans.
However you can use both hans/hennes and sin in the same sentence if one is reffering to subject and the other to another person.
Han tvättade sin bil = he washed his car (the car that belongs to him, the subject).
Han tvättade hans bil = he washed his car ("his" referring to another person than the subject as the owner of the car).
And so, it would be grammaticaly possible to say "han tvättade både sin bil och hans bil".
Swedish needs "att" together with "efter" when initiating a phrase telling us 'what happened after...', and also, when we initiate with this temporal phrase, the following main clause has to change the order between the subject and predicate verb, so we say "Efter ATT hans fru hade dött, BLEV han ..." etc
Shouldn't "Efter hans hustru hade dött, blev han aldrig glad igen." be right, too? Don't Swedes use the word hustru for wife? Or is it only used in situations when talking about "my wife". Since that's what the dictionary suggests at first choice when translating from English to Swedish.