"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?
He never got happy sounds a little strange to me. Maybe something like He never became happy would be better here.
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 have always had serious problems with sin and hans, and no matter how many times it is explained, it is a stumbling block for me! In this instance, could someone explain why it is hans and not sin? Thanks!
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.
And finally, the penny drops! Well done for being the first person to ever explain it in a way I understood!
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.)
Now when I think about it, it is identical in my native language (jego - swoja)
If we switch clauses, can we use sin in that case?
Han blev aldrig glad igen efter att sin fru hade dött.
I wrote "efter hans fru hade dött, han blev aldrig glad igen". Why is wrong?
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
It is common in books to skip it at times though. To create a more smooth experience
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.
It's OK, although it sounds a bit old fashioned (added it). Personally I'd never skip att in this sentence, just like friswing says. It is in fact accepted without att at the moment, but I think that is an error.
I am a native swedish and there are multiple wats for getting this right. They only accept 1 of them though. So dont sweat it too much if you get it wrong