"I did not get the answer I was hoping for."
Translation:Jag fick inte det svar jag hoppades på.
The determinative pronoun "den/det" is used together with an indefinite noun when followed by a relative clause. It is used when you want to focus the noun and its belonging relative clause. You can change it for a simple definite noun, but then this special focus is lost. Translating it with English that would be too strong, but I'd say its somewhere in between the and that.
When you have "den/det" + indefinite noun, there should always be a relative clause following it.
Det här är den bil (som) de flydde i = This is the car that they escaped in.
Den politiker som inte ljuger vill jag träffa = The politician who isn't lying, I want to meet.
Jag vill ha den katt som är sötast = I want the cat that is cutest
Han såg den kvinna (som) han var kär i = He saw the woman that he was in love with
In a relative clause, som can be omitted when referring to the object.
Up until now, I was under the impression that Swedish grammar does not distinguish between restrictive and non-restrictive types of relative clauses, whereas English grammar does. (The former type of relative clause narrows down what the antecedent refers to, hence it is also known as defining relative clause, while the latter merely provides ancillary information about it.) In translating a relative clause from Swedish to English (where the antecedent is a definite noun), one has to infer from the context which meaning is intended and choose the appropriate construction in English accordingly.
Now with determinative pronoun + indefinite noun as antecedent, I see that all of Blehg's relative clause examples are of the restrictive/defining type. This seems not just accidental, and it makes sense that one wouldn't put the "special focus" on the noun, if the relative clause is only to provide supplemental information. It seems that Swedish grammar does distinguish between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses after all, albeit it is only optional to make this distinction.
I've been trying to learn I Riden Så, and I was curious about the line "All under den linden så gröna". I thought it was a case of poetic license, but now I'm confused.
It's lyrics, and it's deliberately using sometimes old to archaic Swedish. I would consider every line in such a song completely useless for learning grammar.
Tack! Jag tycker om lyssna på den gamla låtar. Jag hittade Brun, I Riden Så, och Herr Mannelig. Jag försöker lär mig dem för att jag kanne sjunga dem på reenacting evenemanger.
Don't get me wrong - I think that's great. Just not a very reliable teaching aid. :)
I completely understand. Like I said, I thought it was just poetic license at first and disregarded it, then I saw something similar here and wondered. Thank you so much for the clarification.
So many questions. So little time...
Where can I find more info about this strange new rule and what are relative clauses?
Relative clauses are the parts of the sentence which contain words like "who", "that", "which", "where", "how", etc. that describe another part of the sentence. "I am the potato which she ate." So Blehg is saying it's equally valid to say "Jag är den potatis hon åt." or "Jag är potatisen som hon åt," but that the former focuses on the fact that I'm the potato that she ate, not the chicken she chased, for example, or some other potato she cuddled with.
Why can't att be used in these sentences? Something like "Jag fick inte svaret att jag hoppades på." My first instinct is always to use att because "that" feels natural in English, what am I missing?
A tip that may help you: every time that in English you can substitute a "that" for "which" or "who", you should use "som" instead of "that".
- I eat apples that/which come from Italy
"Jag äter äpple som kommer från Italien"
I think that you need a new car
- "Jag tycker att du behöva en ny bil"
Thanks! Some of my confusion is probably a misunderstanding of the difference between conjunctions and relative pronouns, even in English :) "that" can serve both functions, which allows us to be lazy to an extent, but I see now "att" and "som" don't have that same flexibility in Swedish.
I had the answer: Jag fick inte svaret jag höppades på. Is this not a correct sentence in Swedish? Why is 'det' put before the noun?
We do accept that, but it's possible Duo marked you wrong for the typo höppades (should be hoppades).
I try to understand. The definite form in Swedish is put behind the noun. Here apparently it is also possible to put it before the noun. Why is that? Thanks for the answer by the way.
You're right, but it's because det is in the sense of "that", so it doesn't trigger the definite.
- jag fick inte svaret... = I did not get the answer...
- jag fick inte det svar... = I did not get that answer...
No, it's also a conjunction, as in e.g. jag vet att de ljuger = I know that they're lying.
But in this case, you'd have to use som for that meaning, since "that" is a relative pronun here.