I get this in the 2nd verbs:present topic. But it seems to me that cold here is an adjective. I'm not too sure what makes it a verb.
Is it perhaps because you are able to say "Jag fryser", direct translation being "I cold". This being equivalent to "I eat", "I run", etc.
Whereas for the adjective of cold in Swedish, you have to say, "Jag år kall". For it to be an abjective, you have to have "år" ("am"/"is"/"are") in the sentence (and, of course, it is a different word in Swedish)?
Is the above correct? (hopefully it makes sense to people). Am I just a bit confused because English does not use cold as an adjective ("I am being cold"... no, "cold" isn't a verb there either!).
Frysa is a verb that literally means "to freeze" - in the context of inanimate things it refers to liquids becoming solids, while in animate things it refers to the act of "feeling cold" and showing the symptoms thereof. If you see someone chattering their teeth, you might ask them if they "fryser".
The exact word "frysa" is never an adjective, while "fryst" or "frusen" are.
It is like saying I freeze. In fact the same verb (frysa) is used for water freezing to ice.
It seems that Jag är kall. means I have a low body temperature., but Jag fryser. means I feel cold.
Waiting to be confirmed by a native speaker. :)
Jag fryser is the most idiomatic expression for I'm feeling cold. Although you are technically correct about jag är kall I still think most people would interpret it as I'm feeling cold. If you want to say I am hypothermic you can say jag är nedkyld.
If you listen closely to the sound, you can tell that it's very similar to German where you say: "Frierst Du?"
That's correct. I'm freezing is stronger so I am cold is a better translation.
i think är dul kal has the same meaning, but it is made by adjective instead of main verb, is it correct?
- fryser is the present tense of the verb to "freeze"
- kalla is the plural and the definite of the adjective "cold"