1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "När vi skulle åka upptäckte …

"När vi skulle åka upptäckte vi att bilen var stulen."

Translation:When we were going to go, we discovered that the car was stolen.

January 12, 2015


  • 1662

Why is it "was stolen" instead of "had been stolen" here? For both the English and the Swedish sentences?


It sounds more like the car they were going to use was a stolen car (and that they still had it and might have still used it), not that their car had been stolen (so as to prevent them from using it go anywhere).

Is this what the Swedish sentence is trying to say (the subjects are about to drive around with a stolen car), or do the tenses of the English(/Swedish) sentences need adjusting?


Do these sentences with subordinate clauses ever have commas separating them from the main clauses, like they do in English?


Yes, I use the comma all the time. I think it is a question of 'generation'. My daughter does not use commas. I do.


No, Swedish does not need them like English does.

[deactivated user]

    Do people still use them when they speak, like make a brake between "När vi skulle åka" and "upptäckte"? How would you say this in person?


    I tend to shorten going to go to just going.


    kan man säga when we were about to go we found that the car was stolen?


    Just in case the error remains: was stolen indicated that the subject still has the car but that it's a stolen car.


    In Swedish, this sentence can mean both of those.


    I disagree; "När vi skulle åka märkte vi att bilen hade blivit stulen" isn't the same as "När vi skulle åka märkte vi att bilen var stulen."


    The second sentence can cover both what the first says, and have another meaning that the first one doesn't have.


    It would be so much easier if there were a comma after the subordinate clause in Swedish!


    Why "upptackte vi"? It can be "vi upptackte"??


    The V2 rule means that the verb must always take second place. The first place in this sentence is the subclause: “När vi skulle åka...” and the verb, ”upptäckte” has to take second place.


    When we were going to go, we discovered that the car was stolen.


    Why is "our" car not accepted ?


    You technically don't know whose car you're going to take because it just says bilen (the car) instead of specifically vår bil. For all we know, "we" may be taking our great-great-grandmother's car :) I do see where you're coming from, though.


    Ok... I was thinking of "jag kan inte hitta plånboken" / "I cannot find my wallet".. But it makes sense :) Tack !


    My dictionary (Esselte Studium 1989) says: -stulit- for -stolen-. Is this gammaldags?


    It's another form, it's the past tense of the verb, like in Någon har stulit bilen 'Someone has stolen the car'. But this is the past participle Bilen är stulen 'The car is stolen'. (= it's a stolen car)


    Thanks a lot, Arnauti. So it would be: -bilen har stulits- equivalent to -bilen är stulen-. Could you give a few other verbs where this 'past participle' exists. I had never clearly realised this duality in Swedish. At the time I learned a lot from just being there and reading Dagens Nyheter.


    Någon har öppnat dörren, dörren har öppnats. Dörren är öppen. Någon har tvättat bilen. Bilen är tvättad. Någon har vattnat blommorna, blommorna har vattnats, blommorna är vattnade.


    Tack så mycket, friswing!


    If I wanted to say the car got stolen would it be blev stulen?


    Yes, that is correct!


    Awesome, thank you


    "When we were about to go, we realized that the car was stolen" should be accepted.


    Hi Ahmad, -to realize- is not the same as -to discover-

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