"Det är inte nödvändigtvis en dyr kostym."

Translation:It is not necessarily an expensive suit.

January 11, 2015

This discussion is locked.


I thought they were talking about animal costumes xD


Omg, glad I'm not alone. XD


This is funny to me. I'm imagining that someone is telling me to steal the suit.


Varför tänker du så?


Can I place 'nödvändigtvis' before 'inte'?


good question, I am curious about it too, but it seems no one has answered it


Can I say "det är nödvändigtvis inte en dyr kostym"? If not, then how should we determine the exact location of adverbials in Swedish sentences, except at the beginning, at the end of a sentence, and after a verb?


I think that would translate to "It is necessarily not an expensive suit." (Maybe because I'm poor.) "Not necessarily" says the property is not guaranteed, "necessarily not" says the negative of the property is guaranteed.


Then what is the rule for adverbs and inte(sentence adverbial)? I thought the adverb should come after the verb.


"It isn't necessarily an expensive suit" should also be accepted.. :(


It should, but try to make it a habit to avoid using contractions on Duolingo. It confuses its poor computer brain, especially since "is" and "has" is contracted the same way.


Why not 'That is..."


That is = Det där är


"Det" alone can mean "that" depending on context, though you generally put more emphasis on it than if you mean "it". I suppose if I had to choose I'd accept it, but with the side note that "it" sounds a lot more natural to me in this particular context.


I wonder why, the translations do not choose equivalents that are closer in sound/structure/linguistic roots (etc), for example, why use 'expensive' for dyr, as the most natural translation is 'dear'. Similarly, älg, "elk", is closer than moose; both words originate from the same 'root'. Again, 'precis'; English has exactly/precisely the same word and meaning, just spelt differently, precise. There used to be a rough stylistic guide for translation and writing in general in English if faced with alternatives, choose an equivalent that is simpler, choose from Anglo-Saxon, choose the one with the greatest similarity. So, dear for dyr, elk for älg, precise/ly for precis ... etc. Out of all the languages I have ever studied, with the possible exception of Norse, Swedish, I find to be the easiest, because of its closeness to English, so why not utilise this more? It seems perverse not to.


Just guessing here but I think that they want to avoid it because of the problems with 'false friends', e,g. bra, sex, fart, under etc.


That is a very good point, though, of course, false friends are always to be found. You may as well, keep the true friends and point out the false. But, thank you for your thoughtful reply; you may well be correct.


Det är lugnt.


Isn't and is not are the same so why reject the answer?

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