Could you say "Hon är jättervacker"? I had gotten the impression that "snygg" was handsome, while "väcker" was beautiful.
Just trying to work out the context for the words here. Would snygg be used more exclusively for attractive people, and väcker more generally for beautiful things? (e.g. people, flowers, sunsets, music, etc.)
vacker is more about classical beauty. A guy who 'looks like a Greek god' is vacker.
snygg is a bit more colloquial and sounds cooler. But you can say it about things too.
jättevacker also works as a compound adjective.
Be careful with those dots though, väcker means 'wakes [someone] up' so both the sound and the meaning changes drastically.
"Snygg" is pretty much a gender-neutral way of saying "Handsome/Beautiful".
Snygg must be related to German - probably really Low German - "schnieke". This is fun.
Sometimes I feel that Swedish is basically the bastard child of Old Norse's affair with Low Geman, who then hung out with French a great lot as a teenager... So that seems reasonable.
Does "jätte" work as a "very" outside of this context / outside of compound words?
On its own, it's a noun meaning a giant. We can't use it as an adjective on its own. (Many Swedes write compound words apart anyway, but that is still considered en error.)
Yes. It's slightly more colloquial than very, but the meaning exactly that.
@Lng52-._: I don't think I've ever seen anybody actually use vällustig.
Can you use jätter for any word when you want to say something is very something
Sort of, but it won't be accepted everywhere in the course due to the workload that would put on us contributors. Bear in mind that jätte- has to be a compound word with its adjective, and that it's quite colloquial. You wouldn't write jätte- in an essay or a formal letter.
Nope. Since our Å Ä Ö are letters of their own and not variants of A and O, they don't need names for the dots more than R needs a name for the little diagonal line.
I read that the dots are called "pricks " (Yeah, I giggle at that.) But I got that from more than one source. Can anyone here confirm?
Went to add this now and apparently I already did three months ago. So, uhm, I guess it's accepted now. :)
"pretty" is accepted if you use a modifier such as "very", "really", etc.
Isn't it true though that snygg is generally used on account of or in relation to someone's clothing, hairstyle, accessories, etc? In other words, isn't it more likely that someone would say a fancily-dressed subject of a Zorn painting was 'snygg', but not use that word to describe one of his nudes regardless of how beautiful she might be? Isn't the Braskkulla pretty much about as snygg as anybody can hope to get? https://www.magnoliabox.com/products/braskkulla-a-peasant-girl-from-moro-1629743
All right, thanks. I was surprised to see any Google hits at all for "snygg utsikt", but you're right, there were millions of them. There still were still 3 times as many for "fin utsikt" though. And an image search on "Mona Lisa snyggt" gave drastically different results than when I did the same thing with both "fin" and "vacker". Which is pretty much exactly what I thought would happen. Wiktionary uses both "good-looking" and "handsome" as synonyms, but not "beautiful". Opinions always vary but to me it seems easy and reasonable to call this guy snygg, much harder to call him vacker. Maybe it's just me. http://blogg.improveme.se/juliasofie/2011/10/25/snygg-snyggare-snyggast/
To be clear, I'm not saying the words are synonymous, just that snygg isn't just "generally used on account of or in relation to someone's clothing, hairstyle, accessories, etc". If anything, if I heard han/hon är jättesnygg without context, I would presume the speaker meant that he or she has a really good-looking face and/or body.