"Har du varit i Stockholm?"

Translation:Have you been in Stockholm?

January 10, 2015

This discussion is locked.


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.


Au contrairie, "har du varit till Stockholm" is a well established construction in both spoken and written Swedish and has been in use at least since the 18th century.


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?".


Native speaker here, and the construction "Har du varit till Stockholm" as a way of inquiring about whether someone has ever travelled there is both alive and well, and well attested in both the spoken vernacular and the literary language. It is not an anglicism either, as the first examples of this usage that I could find go back to the 18th century. (Om du undrar varför jag har två 'poäng' vid den svenska flaggan här beror det på att jag ville kolla upp kvaliteten på duolingos innehåll för en ryskspråkig privatelev.)


But is that the main meaning of this sentence in Swedish? I agree there are occasions when "in" is necessary, but i think most of the time "to" is a better translation


I'm native English and I fully agree with this. I don't see anything wrong with saying "in Stockholm". I might add that I would use "in Stockholm" if I was emphasizing the specific condition or events that took place in the city at the time the other person was there recently (e.g. a snowstorm), and how that effected them, and wanted their perspective on that. Asking whether they've been "to Stockholm" emphasizes more the permanent features of the city across time, e.g. if you've seen famous landmarks.


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 =)


I would have an objection there: there is a passive perfect construction that does use 'är' instead of 'har', but that's not described in all grammars of the language.


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.


@Andruoduo In some modern grammars of the Swedish language, a passive form with the past participle and "är"/"var" has also been included. It's attested since centuries back, so it's weird that they've only really started formally describing it as such recently. "Den är byggd av trä och sten" is, today, seen as a passive, perfective construction. There is a sort of aspectual difference in meaning between the left, middle and right construction in the pairs below: den är byggd av sten | den blev byggd av sten den var byggd av sten | den hade blivit byggd av sten


You also find this in some set expressions in Swedish: dagen är kommen, kristus är uppstånden, etc. Whether this is a "native" construction or something that entered Swedish by proxy of low german influence in medieval times or high german influence in biblical translation practices, I have no idea. In some texts of the 18th and 19th century, you do find some distinction encoded by the choice of är/har, but this seems (iirc) inconsistent: some encode transitivity, some are closer to the German rule, some seem to have it as an optional way of encoding transitivity (but 'har' is always permissible) - figuring out the exact rules they operated by is not trivial, I wouldn't even be surprised if it was something like "+intransitive +strong verb takes 'är'".

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