"You do not have to agree."

Translation: Du behöver inte hålla med.

[Haesselmaas]

Really? It's really correct Swedish to end the sentence here, without adding the words "om det"? It just sounds wrong somehow...

[Zmrzlina]

The sentence is perfectly fine. :)

[Super-Svensk]

It's just the way that it is said (I guess it's kind of a saying). The phrase hålla med means to agree.

[Arnauti]

I just want to add that hålla med is a particle verb, so remember to stress med.

[person222222]

What's the difference between behöver and måste in this sentence, in terms of meaning? (Ie, what's the difference in meaning between du behöver inte hålla med and du måste inte hålla med)

[Arnauti]

du behöver inte hålla med It isn't necessary for you to agree.
du måste inte hålla med You are not obliged to agree.

[dfpeterson]

Behöver is need, so "Jag behöver vatten" is "I need water" but "måste" is "must" so "Jag måste ha vetten" is "I must have water." Note that, just like "must," "måste" is a helper verb, so it can't stand on its own, where "behöver" can.

[person222222]

I mean, what's the difference in meaning between the two. what does behöver imply in the sentence and what does måste imply in the sentence. For example: in the negative need to and have to in english imply optionality, but must implies necessity

[ion1122]

You guys are arguing about the meaning of the negative (must not/need not) rather than the positive (must/need). With most English verbs X, the negation is equivalent to 'it is not the case that X'. For example 'You need not worry about it' = 'It is not the case that you need worry about it'. But English 'must' is unusual. 'I must' = 'I have to'; but 'I must not' does not equal 'I don't have to'. Rather' I must not' means 'I am not allowed to'. However, in Swedish, 'måste inte' does not mean 'I am not allowed to' but rather "I don't have to'. (Cf. similar German 'muss nicht'.) (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

[BalvinderC1]

So, do you know in Swedish how to say 'you must not' i.e. you are obliged not to or you are strongly advised not to? Maybe these two interpretations of 'you must not' are distinct from each other in Swedish?

[Arnauti]

In the sense ion1122 is talking about ('aren't allowed to'): får inte.

[dfpeterson]

It suggests "vara tvungen att" for "have to" is there a correct form of this sentence that includes that phrase?

[Arnauti]

Du är inte tvungen att hålla med or Ni är inte tvungna att hålla med are technically correct. They aren't accepted answers at the moment, I'm not sure whether they should be or not. Their meaning is a bit stronger, since they mean literally You are not forced to agree.

[elderhewitt]

can you also say "du behöver inte var överens"? or is this incorrect?

[Arnauti]

Du behöver inte vara överens sounds like an incomplete sentence to me – if anyone said that, I'd ask Överens med vem?.

[jhlouise]

Would you agree that "behöver inte" is essentially like the English "need not" (i.e. "You need not agree"). It's not a phrase commonly used any more, but thinking of it in that way helps me remember the Swedish translation.

[Arnauti]

Yes, I think so. Same for don't need to. It seems to me that English used to distinguish between need and have to much the same way we still distinguish between behöver and måste, but that the distinction has collapsed in English today, or at least in many versions of English.

[MarisBoyd]

why can we not say du behöver inte att hålla med?

[CruiseCont]

yes, I am also wondering about the same thing--what is the rule of adding or not adding ATT before the verb in the infinitive form?

[Den_Oslagbara]

Would "Du behöver inte ATT hålla med" work?

[jwbards]

Some verbs take att and some do not. I can't help with which - I get it wrong all the time - but the hints in the infinitive sections have good information. Getting it to stick is another thing entirely ...

Edit: Here's the link:
https://www.duolingo.com/skill/sv/Verbs%3A-Infinitive