1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "I do not eat chicken because…

"I do not eat chicken because I am a vegetarian."

Translation:Jag äter inte kyckling eftersom jag är vegetarian.

January 16, 2015



And why därför doesn't fit here?


eftersom means 'because', but därför means 'therefore' or 'because of that'. So if you say that instead, you change the meaning completely.


Därför att works as an alternative to eftersom (except at the start of a sentence, where only eftersom works, I gather). But not därför by itself.


Exactly. därför and därför att are very different beasts :)


Yet,"för att" is not accepted? I thought "för" was short for därför..


what is the difference between därför att and eftersom?


I find weird satisfaction noticing that darfor sounds almost exactly as therefore


So, can I say "Jag ar vegetarian darfor jag ater inte kyckling." ?


Wrong word order, but you can say: Jag är vegetarian, därför äter jag inte kyckling. 'I'm a vegetarian, therefore I don't eat chicken'.
The clause introduced by därför is a main clause so the verb has to go in second place. (There's a longer text about word order that you can find from the sticky post under Swedish Discussions).


I'm honestly on the edge of giving up because of this grammar -_- BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE UP I'LL BE FLUENT IN THIS LANGUAGE.. someday xD


It's been three years, did you stick with it Maxi3mo?


That's the spirit!


I totally didn't read it as "I do not eat CHILDREN because I am a vegetarian." and stopped to think for a moment... Really, is that the only reason you don't eat children?


Why is there no en/ett before vegetarian?


Swedish doesn't use an article before occupations and political/religious/personal affiliations. Just as you say "jag är läkare", you say "jag är vegetarian".


......I am a vegetarian ...here, vegetarian is a noun. The answer..I am vegetarian uses the word vegetarian as an adjective. So can vegetarian ever be used as a noun or is it always an adjective?


I do not eat chicken because I am a vegetatian Jag äter inte kyckling därför att jag är vegetarian I do not eat chicken since I am a vegetarian Jag äter inte kyckling eftersom jag är vegetarian And the third option from nativ Swedish person Jag äter inte kyckling för jag är vegetarian ... And according to her all three option ar correct


And here's another one. Jag äter inte kyckling eftersom att jag är vegetarian.


The ones Lillian mentioned are all accepted, but eftersom att is much too colloquial to add.


I put "Jag äter inte kyckling därför att jag är vegetarian". Why is därför att wrong?


för att should also be correct here instead of eftersom?


Why is it 'inte' and not 'ingen'?


"inte" is part of "äter inte" - not eat. ingen could be coupled with "kyckling" - "ingen kyckling" - I don't eat any chicken. From what I gathered that would still be correct, it's just uncommon/weird(?) phrasing. It works kind of like nicht and kein in German, if you ever had any contact with that.


As far as I know inte and ingen are pretty similiar to not and no. So you wouldn't say 'I do no eat chicken'


that's what i want to understand also - why isn't för att also accepted?


There's some overlap, mostly colloquial, but för att generally means "because" in the sense of "in order to".


Whats the difference between eftersom, darfor att and darfor?


Am I to understand the the reason it is "jag är vegetarian" and not "jag är en vegetarian" is because the former is defining myself as a vegetarian, but the latter is comparing myself to a vegetarian?

So in declaring myself a vegetarian, I would say "jag är vegetarian" but if I was to say "jag äter inte kyckling, eftersom jag är en vegetarian" would be saying, "I don't eat chicken, because I'm (like) a vegetarian."

Is that right, or an I just crazy?


No, it has nothing to do with that. For people being things like this, Swedish simply doesn't use the indefinite article. It most commonly applies to professions, but also to many other things such as vegetarian. If you say jag är en vegetarian, you're essentially pointing out that you're "one" vegetarian.


Thanks for the clarification


Does "eftersom" mean "after all"?


No, it means "because".


Is därför att accepted in place of eftersom ? I had another error ("en vegetarian) and thus can't know if därför att is accepted.


Why is it not "är jag"? I thought the verb had to come before the subject when done later in the sentence..


You're on the right track, but eftersom is a conjunction. So you have two main clauses that do not affect each other's word order.


Isn't the first part of the sentence a main clause? Why exactly is the frase "Jag äter inte kyckling eftersom är jag vegetarian" not correct? Thanks a lot!


That is because the first part is the main clause. If the subclause comes first, you need to move the verb in the main clause to accomodate for v2. But if the main clause comes first, there's no reason to move it in the subclause.

So if it had been the other way around, you'd have been completely right: Eftersom jag är vegetarian äter jag inte kyckling.


Are these sentences correct?

  • "Är du en vegetarian? -Jag är vegetarian",

  • "Är du en student? -Jag är inte studenten",

  • "Är du en lärare? -Ja det gör jag, (en lärare är jag)"


Swedish doesn't use the article for people being things such as professions and similar, so you don't need the en in any of those questions. As for the answers:

  • Jag är vegetarian is correct
  • Jag är inte student, since you want the indefinite - otherwise it says "I am not the student"
  • Ja, det är jag (jag är lärare), since det gör jag means "that I do" rather than "that I am"; also, the "a teacher I am" construction is better left off for poetry :)


Would it be correct to say "[...]en vegetarian?"


Can I use "för att" instead of "eftersom"in this sentence?


No, it doesn't really work here. You can use just för, though.


Would you mind explaining why 'för att' doesn't work here? Would 'därför att' work?


därför att would work. I honestly can't figure out the exact reason, sorry.


Why does "I am a vegetarian" become "jag är vegetarian" in Swedish. Can't you say "jag är en vegetarian" (Duolingo didn't accept it) ?


Please refer to the other comments on this.


Why fail because I put en vegetarian!


Please see the other comments on this.


jag äter inte kyckling eftersom jag är en vegetarian - system shows wrong. Right shows "Jag äter inte kyckling eftersom jag är vegetarian." But "a vegetarian" is "en vegetarian", not just "vegetarian". I'm mistaken?


Please see the other comments on this.


Why "a vegeterian" is just vegeterian without en?


vegetarianen is the definite form - "the vegetarian".


A previous lesson taught that "värför då då meant why, though in the comments section it was specified as "therefore". This lesson just taught that "därför" is why? What is the difference between "värför", and "därför"? And would I need to use the "då då" after därfor as needed like "värför då då?"

  • varför? = why?
  • därför = because

Saying varför då? is essentially "why is that?" in English. If you add another as well, it turns into "why then?" That's not 100% correct but it's hard to translate perfectly.


Since swedish does not use an article with vegetarian, why does it use it in the english translation, when that is acceptable without it?


That's generally considered more idiomatic in English, but both ways are accepted.

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