1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "If you lose your passport"

"If you lose your passport"

Translation:Om du tappar passet

January 17, 2015



'Om du tappar passet' shouldn't be translated as 'If you lose the passport'? I don't see 'your' anywhere in that sentence, it could be anyone's passport..


I had this problem too.


You can read this thread about possessive pronouns in Swedish.


The link doesn't work, but I have the same question.


What's with the v2 rule here?


This isn't a complete sentence. In fact it's a subclause, so the subject has to go before the verb. If we add an inte, it would have to go before the verb, too.


What about förlorar ?


It should be accepted. Did you try it?


Yes, it was not accepted, even so it fits better imo...


It does not fit better. förlorar is a good translation if you lost the passport in a game of cards, or if you want to sound melodramatic or like an official text. Otherwise not so much.

I guess we'll have to approve this translation since it's not per se wrong, maybe you are talking about losing your passport in a game of poker, you can't tell from the English sentence. I just hope people won't believe this is a good way to talk about no longer having your passport, because it is not. Other ways to say this that would also be better would be blir av med or tappar bort. (with the stress on 'av' and 'bort' respectively).


Thank you! I actually ask a Swedish friend today and he said also tappar or tappar bort. Good to know that in Swedish förlorar relates more to losing in games. In German it would be valid for both cases, so maybe I just inferred it for Swedish too.


I agree that "förlora passet" is not the best translation. Still, it covers all possibilities like "tappa", "förlägga", "bli bestulen" etc.


True :). I'm usually very absent-minded and lose things all the time. And I normally call it "förlora", probably just to make it sound less sloppy.


So does blir av med, without sounding like a bad translation.


You go on great lengths explaining that it's not the best translation, but in the same text you say that förlorar can be used "like an official text".

If it should be used in official texts then what am I missing here? The explanation seems contradictory in this part.


Why is "Om du tappar dit pass" not correct ?


Close, but the right spelling is ditt. Since dit is a different word (meaning "there" as a direction), Duo won't let you through with a simple typo notice.


Yes, of course : ett pass, so "ditt pass". Thanks !


What is it du tappar instead of tappar du?


This isn't a complete sentence. In fact it's a subclause, so the subject has to go before the verb. It's a bit confusing on its own like this.


Could someone explain the use of "bort"?


tappa bort (stress on bort) is a phrasal verb meaning 'lose'. tappa can be used to mean 'lose', but basically it only means 'drop (unintentionally)'.


Why would it not be, Om tappar du passet, on account of V2?


This is just a sentence fragment - a full sentence would have another clause first, with om being a conjunction. So the v2 rule would then be in effect on both sides of the om.


Okay, I understand. Although I was assuming it was the first part of a sentence as in, "If you lose your passport go to the embassy and ask for a new one."


Sure, that would also work - but it still has the same function even though the preceding clause has been moved.


If I'm not mistaken, a rough English translation for this is "If you drop your passport"?


Not really - tappa is either "drop" or "lose", but only the intended meaning works as a translation, after all. :)

(Side note: it can note to tap as well, as in tapping a liquid.)


I used "ditt"... Please is there a thread about possessive pronouns to read? Thank you :-)


Since this sounded like some rulebook what you can do to retreive it, I wrote "Om man tappar passet" and it was marked wrong. Was it really wrong though?

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