"After his wife had died, he never got happy again."

Translation:Efter att hans fru hade dött blev han aldrig glad igen.

January 4, 2015

26 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/CrazyChao

Why is the att necessary here?

January 11, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/friswing

'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?

January 13, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Carl298912

It isn't

December 29, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/desifromitaly

En man som heter Ove... :-D

February 13, 2017

https://www.duolingo.com/AwesomeLan5

A man thats named ove

June 8, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/jarrettph

He never got happy sounds a little strange to me. Maybe something like He never became happy would be better here.

August 2, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/boDjwyEj

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.

April 27, 2019

https://www.duolingo.com/tracymorgan1

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!

January 4, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Lundgren8

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.

January 4, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/tracymorgan1

And finally, the penny drops! Well done for being the first person to ever explain it in a way I understood!

January 4, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/tracymorgan1

I am embarrassed at how simple it sounds now I understand it!

January 4, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Lundgren8

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.)
January 4, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/tracymorgan1

Thank you, that is very useful - you have explained it so well!

January 4, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Malgosia007

Now when I think about it, it is identical in my native language (jego - swoja)

March 1, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/manykey

If we switch clauses, can we use sin in that case?

Han blev aldrig glad igen efter att sin fru hade dött.

August 20, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/jwbards

I'm going to say no - because "sin" refers back to a person mentioned previously in the same clause and because "efter" begins a new clause. Could someone confirm, please? Tack så mycket!

August 23, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/Gaby754722

I wrote "efter hans fru hade dött, han blev aldrig glad igen". Why is wrong?

April 8, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/friswing

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

April 10, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/MdsmB1

It is common in books to skip it at times though. To create a more smooth experience

July 27, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/EeroMakinen

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.

December 8, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Arnauti

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.

December 8, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/MdsmB1

It would be. But they only accept one right answer. I am a native swedish so

July 27, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/jwbards

Är så blev han fel?

May 28, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/AwesomeLan5

A man named ove

June 8, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/MdsmB1

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

July 27, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/ClarkJensen21

Can you use lycklig in place of glad?

April 3, 2019
Learn Swedish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.