Translation:If I miss the train, I take the bus.
Can someone explain why the second half of this sentence doesn't read Jag tar bussen?
The structure of the whole sentence is like this:
[SUBCLAUSE] tar jag bussen.
This means the subclause as a whole has the first place, and then the verb needs to come in second place, the V2 rule.
The V2 rule does not work for questions and subclauses, so in the subclause Om jag missar tåget, we have straight word order just like in English.
If you put the main clause first instead, you would get this:
Jag tar bussen [SUBCLAUSE]
where you would still have the verb in second place in the main clause.
If you put the main clause first would the sentence become: Jag tar bussen om missar jag tåget. ?
It would be Jag tar bussen om jag missar tåget.
In that sentence, …om jag missar tåget is still a subclause, so the word order is "subject before verb".
When om is a conjunction, it's always a subordinating conjunction and starts subclauses.
I forgot where it was but I think someone was saying on another thread that missar was more missing people and something else was for missing a train, did I misunderstand?
Probably, missing people as in 'I wish s/he was here' is saknar, but missing the train is indeed missar.
is it correct if I say both saknar and missar have the same meaning (missing) but saknar get used for missing people and missar for missing objects?
They have different meanings, but miss in English covers both.
sakna means to long for someone (or something), to wish that something were present, when it isn't. I miss my dad – my dad is not here but I wish he was.
missa means to not hit or catch something. You shoot at a target but miss it, you try to catch the train but you miss it.
I notice that the translation "when I miss the train" (meaning, out of the times I do this trip, sometimes I catch the train but some times I miss it, in which case I ride the bus), is not accepted here. As far as I understand, in some languages there are no separate ways to say "when" and "if" in this context. Is there such a distinction in Swedish?
Also, "I ride the bus" is not accepted. Now, this is about English so maybe the wrong place to discuss, but I think it also means "take the bus", like "-How do you go home from work? -I ride the bus".
Yes, in Swedish we use när in exactly the same way, so if you say when in English, you should say när in Swedish.
There's a difference between ride the bus and take the bus in that take the bus includes the component of getting on the bus, whereas ride the bus does not, it only refers to the actual riding. The first is åker buss in Swedish, and the second tar bussen.
I answered "If I miss the train, then I will take the bus" and was marked wrong because I included "then."
In English conditional if-then statements, the "then" is basically optional, and has no bearing on the meaning of the sentence. So why is it incorrect to translate this sentence that way? Is Duolingo getting picky over the inclusion of another word? If so, is there a word in Swedish that plays a similar role to "then" in English conditionals, and which is also often omitted without changing the sentence?
Added that, it works the same with så in Swedish. You can add it and it might make the sentence a little clearer and possibly also a little more colloquial, but it doesn't change the meaning.