Just a heads-up that you don't really "take" consequences in English - "accept" or "deal with" would be more idomatic.
I'll also submit that to 'face' the consequences is very common, for any English learners out there.
Face here in California. Deal with, accept are also good. Never 'take.'
I think Swedes would use "att inse" in such case. Inse konsekvenserna? Can any native speaker confirm that?
agreed: accept, and suffer consequences would be two options in English.
I have heard and use both 'bear' and 'deal with', but I'm partial to 'bear'.
I myself use and hear "face" and "suffer".
Agreed - face makes the most sense to me
Or you take responsibility. But it sounds wrong as it is, I agree.
I'm British, take sounds fine to me
"pay the consequences" was the first way of expressing this in English that came to my mind.
"Take" really doesn't collocate well in English.
here is had on one other same sample was has...
Måste can be either present or past, but it’s almost always present and for the past var tvungen is used instead.
there no problem with that simply my answer in present should be accepted
The present tense is accepted, what did you put?
Trying to imagine a past equivalent for "Måste" I came up with "musted". Laughs were had.
Var tvungen = "was forced"...
So would you use it as "var tvungen att <infinitive>"? Or is the att optional here too?
Var tvungen literally means ’was forced’ but think of it as meaning ’had to’ because it’s grammaticalised and Swedes don’t think of the literal meaning of it. And yes, you always use the att.
Thanks for that!
"Hon måste ta konsekvenserna." = "She needs to take the consequences." ?
Contributors are keeping måste - must/have to and behöver - need to strictly separate.
Why must take is not accepted/
That should be accepted; she must and she has to are synonyms. Please report it next time you come across this sentence.