1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Sverige har fått en ny reger…

"Sverige har fått en ny regering."

Translation:Sweden has gotten a new government.

January 4, 2015



Umm, what's wrong with 'Sweden has a new government'?


Good question, I thought the same. In English, you can use 'have' of 'have got' in case of possessions without any difference in meaning, so in this case, both should be considered correct.


You can use them interchangeably to say that they already have it, but only have got can be used to mean what the Swedish sentence here means, namely that they have 'received' or 'gotten' it. (The first one would be Sverige har en ny regering in Swedish.)


So is this more like "has received" as in someone else gave it to them?


Yeah, or more exactly it focuses on the change of state into having something one didn't have before. Basically is never used to mean 'get for oneself', that is skaffa (sig). For instance 'get a life' would be skaffa dig ett liv, you can't use for that.
'Get a job' is ambiguous in English but hon skaffade sig ett jobb and hon fick ett jobb mean different things in Swedish.


Got it, tack för förklaringen


That would be Sverige har en ny regering.


Ah, I see - misread it! Thanks!


"Has got" is appalling English! You must accept "has".


It's that pesky American way of forming the perfect tense again. :) The Swedish sentence doesn't say that Sweden has a new government, it says that it has gotten one. And we do accept both "gotten" and "received". Hope that helps!


No that doesn't help, Joel. The word got/gotten/ received adds nothing to the sentence that is not conveyed by the word new. The word has alone should be accepted.


My point is that Swedish makes a difference between having something and having received something. Usually, English does too, but it's not very idiomatic to differentiate between them here. Accepting the has-only version would be detrimental to the course - yet not doing it would be detrimental to many learners. Like I wrote above, we'll get back to this sentence later, as we build the next tree version. To be honest, I don't think we'll keep it.


Part of it might be the structure of government. America doesn't have a parliamentary system, so maybe that's a reason why we don't use "has got" in this case. I'm not British, but I know they use "has got" a lot more than we do (not just for governments either).

I never liked "gotten". I think it's also an American thing, something else we did to ruin English.


Yes, thanks - I've just discovered that you accept "has received" here. It's still very odd English, though!


How would you prefer to phrase it? Without reconstructing the sentence entirely, I mean.


The only natural English is "has" (I've just got donged yet again). Both "has got" and "has received" suggest that the government has arrived from somewhere else - maybe brought by an errant stork?


Hah - I think I should very much like to see that stork!

I think the problem is in idiomatics rather than grammatics here. It's not that the sentence is inherently incorrect in English. Rather, it's not the way you'd typically state that a change in government has occurred.

I will mark the sentence for further discussion for now, and we'll revisit it later to see what we want to do about it. Thank you for your input again.


I would say that Sweden has acquired a new government.


For those of you who are interested in politics, although I realise you are but few. The freshly elected government is limping on:



Trust me, NOTHING can beat the Belgian way of government formation (if that's even a thing here). 2012 anyone? 2020 - saved by corona (for now) ;)


'has gotten' urgh very inelegant in English (traditional)


"Gotten"? Does not sound right at all.


Thank you SO much for having come back, devalanteriel, and sincerely hope your health has improved. You are my hero. Really. That said, in English, countries do not "receive" new governments (Google search for "has received a new government" = 5 hits, whereas "has got a new government" = 198,000, "has gotten a new government" = 21,600). For what it's worth. :-(


That's true - I didn't realise "received" was the default. I've changed that to "gotten", to avoid the ambiguity with "got".


Since this section now does have the Swedish sentence "Sverige har en ny regering", can't this old sentence be scrapped, because of the difficulties of translation into English?


The word 'got' is not essential in that sentence but I was marked wrong for omitting it.


I originally wrote it 'has got' but it sounded so wrong to me I deleted "got" and got marked wrong. I will learn to include "fått" in that sentence if I ever need to say it, but I will still translate it into English without "got". It just sounds wrong.


This sentence doesn't mean that Sweden has a new government, it means that it has gotten a new government. The message isn't the "ownership" of the new government but the "receiving" of it.

[deactivated user]

    I agree with Harold that "has got" is dreadful and it makes me twitch just having to write it. It would never be used in this context, at least by anybody with the slightest understanding of basic English grammar. While I understand that it is to make a distinction between different Swedish meanings and highlight "fått", it does not mean that it is okay to translate it into clumsy English.


    Please also note that I wrote the following:

    "Like I wrote above, we'll get back to this sentence later, as we build the next tree version. To be honest, I don't think we'll keep it."

    That said, I am no longer officially involved with the course, so I do not know what choices the current team will make.


    Why are you not involved with the course anymore, if I may ask?


    Duolingo rolled out a new contributor's agreement with which I did not really agree at the time, so I stepped down. To be clear, there was no drama - just me and Duo HQ having slightly different opinions. :)

    Since then, however, I've actually returned again - mostly because there is a small number of users trying to force their racist and sexist views into the course, and since the Swedish team currently has no other really active member, I felt that my presence was needed to counteract the "all immigrants are rapist muslims" idiots.


    Thank you for sharing :)


    Not happy with your answer


    Feel free to be a little more constructive.


    This one sounds kind of strange to me in English. Use of 'got' or 'received' in the context of government could just as easily imply a violent transition of power as it could the process of a new PM being appointed (even more so if 'received' is used, as that implies that the process involved a foreign state making the decisions).

    Is this an idiomatic way in Swedish of saying that a new PM and ministers have been appointed, or is there perhaps some more common way of saying it?


    I understand the difference between what this (English) sentence is intended to mean and what "Sverige har en ny regering" would mean, but both the sentence and some of the comments are misguided. "Gotten" is American exclusively, and not even all Americans would use it: to most speakers of English throughout the world it sounds odd - either archaic or dialectal. There is nothing "appalling" about "Sweden has got a new government": I (Scottish, and a retired academic in the language field) would find it perfectly normal. I gather the difference between "Sverige har en ny regering" and "Sverige har fat en ny regering" is that the first simply states the fact of a regime change and could be said days or weeks after the event, and the second would be said in immediate response to the change taking place - just after the results were announced, maybe. But in English you wouldn't convey those two senses by choosing between "has" or "has got".


    I understand that there is a difference in swedish, but 'has gotten a new government' is a phrase that a native speaker is very unlikely to utter.


    I can only offer my comment as a speaker of American English, but 'has gotten' is a very inelegant construction and something unlikely to roll off the tongue of most native speakers.

    I just hate it when you're rolling along heading toward 100% and then get tripped up by something like this!

    [deactivated user]

      Regering is NOT government, but, administration.


      Regering is definitely "government". It's the standard translation, which any dictionary will offer. Swedish newspapers regularly translate e.g. "Obama's administration" into Obamas administration, since there is no great 1:1 translation of the American political term "administration".

      [deactivated user]

        Sorry, you are wrong. Go read a good Swedish dictionary, such as Norstedts, and you will learn that" regering" is described very like USA usage of "administration". Some weeks back I combined what Norstedts gives under "regering" with additional info. No one seems to have noticed. Swedish structure for government services vs regering is much like in USA. The election, etc. of members of "regering" is very much like in USA, and in as much a mess presently as is present USA Trump administration.


        The first hit in Norstedt's Swedish to English dictionary for regering is literally "government".

        I absolutely agree that the process is similar, and so are the functions of the branches - but "government" is the overwhelmingly most common translation of regering, and definitely the best one.

        [deactivated user]

          Obviously, you and I have very little common understanding of Swedish or how elected administrations/regeringar differ from governments. With this comment I quit this pointless exchange.

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