1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Har du varit i Stockholm?"

"Har du varit i Stockholm?"

Translation:Have you been in Stockholm?

January 10, 2015



Could this also mean Have you been to Stockholm? or would that be Har du varit till Stockholm?


Yes, the first one. To say "varit till Stockholm" does not make sense.


As a native English speaker, I find the use of "in" here very odd. I would always say "to Stockholm".


Have to disagree with you on this one. "Have you been in Stockholm?" asks where someone has physically been lately as opposed to "Have you been to Stockholm?" which asks whether you have ever travelled to Stockholm. They are expressed differently in English but clearly not in Swedish - sounds like we need to use context to work out which meaning is intended.

eg "I haven't seen you for a while. Have you been in Stockholm?"

"I hear you are travelling around Sweden. Have you been to Stockholm?".


Quite correct. I wonder if those who keep downvoting are native english speakers


Would "Have you visited Stockholm?" be an acceptable translation, or would it stray too far from the intent of the question?


I believe the Swedish for that would be "Har du besökt Stockholm?". I get what you mean though - both phrases have basically the same meaning, but I think Duolingo wanted to keep it separate so we can learn the differences in translation. I suppose it's up to the admins to decide :)


Does Swedish use only one auxillary verb to construct the perfect tense?


Which perfect tense are you talking about?

It's very similar to English. Present and past perfect are created with the auxiliary verb "ha" = "have". Eg: "Jag har lagat middag" = "I have made dinner" // "Jag hade lagat middag" = "I had made dinner"

Future perfect is created with the verbs "ha" and "komma". Eg: "Jag kommer (att) ha lagat middag, när..." = I will have made dinner, when....

Conditional perfect is created with "ha" and "skulle"(ska). Eg: Jag skulle ha lagat middag, om inte ... = I would have made dinner, if not...


I was refering to the present perfect tense and what I actually meant whether ha is the only auxillary verb used to construct it. For example German uses sein (to be) for conditions and movement and haben (to have) for everything else: Ich bin gegangen = I have gone; Ich habe gegessen = I have eaten. Italian is pretty similar and sometimes uses avere and sometimes essere.


We don't like to complicate things, we only have "ha" for present perfect =)


English used to have a similar distinction, although I'm not sure of all the details. But you can see it in the song Joy to the World... "The Lord is come."


I think it was the same in Swedish. There is a very old song which goes 'det är en ros utsprungen ur gässerot och stam'' ( 1% reservation for the spelling in the 2nd half). But maybe be/vara+perfektParticip like 'is built of stone' where you cannot say 'it has built of..' of course, is a completely different subject : 'den är gjord av sten' och inte 'den har gjord...' . In German it is called passiv form and is always constructed using 'werden/bliva' . In Swedish that would be 'den har blivit byggd' eller 'den blev byggd' so , 'it has been built' and 'it was built'. Maybe sb could explain the Swedish bonus form 'den är byggd'. the verb is btw 'bygga, byggde, byggt' so 'byggd' ('bygd' is a false friend!) is no normal perfect participe, hm, I wish I payed more attention in school på svenska undervisningen. just take this comment as entertainment rather than education, will you !? I guess I confused some of you. [native...sometimes does not help]


"Es ist ein Ros entsprungen" (from Wikipedia). The hymn has its roots in an unknown author prior to the 17th century. It first appeared in print in 1599 and has since been published with a varying number of verses and in several different translations. It is most commonly sung to a melody which was harmonized by the German composer Michael Praetorius in 1609.

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