"Vi skulle börja med att spela fotboll, men han hade glömt bollen hemma."

Translation:We were going to start by playing soccer, but he had forgotten the ball at home.

January 27, 2015

This discussion is locked.


"...forgotten the ball at home..." is not natural English -> "...left the ball at home..." would be more common.

  • 2479

It sounds a bit clunky to me, too. I think "he had forgotten the ball" is fine, or "he had left the ball at home", but "forgotten the ball at home" seems a strange thing to say.

I'm happy to report that "left the ball at home" was accepted, so I know I don't need to remember the strange phrase, and maybe that's how some people do say it.


Doesn't sound at all strange to me. Where are you from?


Boston. Maybe it's an American vs. British thing.


Doesn't soung strange to me either, and I'm Mexican :P


I'm from the West coast of the states and "forgotten the ball at home" sounds fine. Clunky and not very colloquial, but fine.


US here and i also dont like "forgotten at home" so i don't think its a UK/US thing . Forgetting to me doesnt accept prepositional phrases afterwards when talking about an object unless you are literally saying you were at home and forgetting about it in that moment


I agree that the English sentence doesn’t sound natural, and would either say ’he had left the ball at home’ or ’he had forgotten the ball and left it at home’ - the latter makes it explicit that he had forgotten it rather than deliberately left it


I can't remember having seen the combination of börja med before. I didn't know börja required a preposition...


I would say "vi skulle börja med att..." would translate to "we were going to start with...". So to me it sounds as if they were going to do a number of things but they were going to begin with football.


I came here to know about this too

[deactivated user]

    For me the whole sentence was already written and I only had to press "check" or whatever it is called. Weird?


    I'm english, and this sounds wrong to me. It should be " we were going to start playing football but he had left the ball at home"


    Not the same meaning to "we were going to start playing football" as " we were going to start by playing football" Like if they were going to do play several diffent sports but starting with football, thats the swedish meaning here atleast


    Who on earth say "start -with- playing football"? Fix this. No one says that.


    If you are going to play several kinds of games and start with football, this makes sense.


    Even if you are of a different opinion than the course contributors, please could you express it in a more polite way. They were all volunteers and were doing an enormous amount of follow up work, both in the SDs and behind the scenes, once the course was launched.


    So does "to start to play (a sport)" always require "med"? We can't just say "Vi skulle börja att spela fotboll..."?

    • 2479

    As estersandstrom suggests below, I think this sentence is about playing several sports or games, of which football is (or was going to be) the first.

    The English sentence has "with" in it, the same as the "med" in the Swedish. It's something more specific than just starting to play. If the sentence here doesn't quite make sense, here's one with more context: "We took lots of sports equipment to the park, since we planned to stay all day. I was most looking forward to the badminton, but everyone else wanted to begin with playing football."

    So yes, you can say "börja spela" but it doesn't mean exactly the same thing, and you don't use "att" in that case. See this helpful comment: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/7075383 for more information on when "att" is used.


    A very thoughtful and clear answer -- thanks, bex42!


    Geez. We are not learning English, we are learning Swedish. In Swedish, forgotten apparently is fine, stop imposing your language onto another, that just gets in the way in your learning. Maybe you say it differently and that is in YOUR language. You also need to know the translation as it is. I speak Spanish and "forget the ball at home" is perfectly fine, we say it that way too.


    If he had forgotten his ball at home then he would still have time to find it before he set off to play! I think the translation should be 'left' his ball at home. It makes little sense otherwise (in English English anyhow)


    You've never forgotten anything at home and not realized it until you needed it later? Are you from the UK, too (see above)? The first part of the sentence sounds a little awkward to me, but not the second.

    "Hey, kids, what do you want to play first today?" "Let's start with football!" "OK - great - let me get my ball from my bag. (Rustle, rustle.) Where ... oh, no, I took it out last night and forgot it at home! Guess we'll have to start with innebandy."


    I am trying my hardest to think of an example where this might work, but I can't!

    I would still use 'left it at home' rather than 'forgot it at home' in your example!

    I think it must be a English English versus American English divergence. Anyhow, it's good for me to learn the varying uses around the world!


    It probably is regional. I'd use "forgot at home" particularly in a case where I intended to have something with me but do not. I'd use "left at home", too, though. I do love what I find out about English while studying Swedish!


    'Forgot at home' sounds wrong to me too - Yorkshire, England


    You'd never say "forgot at home" in British English.


    Definitely wrong to me to - New Zealand


    It's wrong to me in the US! Not a US/UK thing after all. For objects, i would leave them at home. Forgetting at home means i am doing the act of forgetting while still at home... otherwise left at home makes more sense and comes much more naturally


    "forgot at home" correct in Indian English


    I would translate the start of this phrase as "We would start by playing football...". Would that make sense to a native English speaker (UK English, obviously)?


    start is the same as begin in conversational English.


    Yes, "We were going to start playing football..." ought to be accepted. Just remember that "Vi skulle starta spela fotboll" sounds a bit odd in Swedish, even though "starta" is the usual Swedish translation of "to start". That might be the reason why they haven't included "We were going to start playing football..." among the accepted answers.


    Tack så mycket!


    You'd still need by/with for it to be a correct translation.


    Just to clarify, in Swedish we can "forget something somewhere" (glömmer något någonstans). Can we also use lämnar ("left") in a case where something is forgotten, or would it always be interpreted as intentionally left?


    forget - for a notion, idea, etc. leave - for a thing, object.


    What is the purpose of 'med' in this sentence?


    Start / Begin = Börja

    Start with / Begin with = Börja med

    Start by + verb / (Begin with + verb) = Börja med att + verb


    Forgotten the ball at home sounds wrong to me (Yorkshire). Either 'left the ball at home' or 'forgotten the ball'


    Is this wrong "We were just starting to play football, but he had forgotten the ball at home"?


    It doesn't mean the same thing. 'We were just starting to play football' would be Vi höll just på att börja spela fotboll or Vi skulle precis börja spela fotboll.


    why is "we were about to start playing football but he had forgotten the ball at home" incorrect?


    Your version would be "Vi skulle börja spela fotboll, men han hade glömt bollen hemma". I don't think you can use "be about to" in this case, as the Swedish version doesn't have that immediate implication.

    "We were going to start by playing football, but..." would be another way of translating the Swedish phrase (not sure if it's accepted on DuoLingo though).


    You would never say , we were going to begin with playing football. You would say we were going to begin playing football.

    • 2479

    Two different meanings. One is "begin playing football" where the group had only planned football, and they start. The other is "begin by playing football" where the group has several things planned, maybe even a whole day of sports with prizes or something, and they play football as the first of those things. Weird sentence, but potentially valid. Consider something like "We were going to begin with serving drinks, but we couldn't find the glasses, so we went straight on to the sandwiches."


    What about the idd sound of "begin with playing"? For me I would say either begin playing (a game) or begin with ( named game/activity) when multiple activities are planned or need doing. UK by the way ;)


    I am utterly lost trying to understand what ”We were going to start BY playing soccer is supposed to mean.

    I could imagine that this could be a situation in any kind of tournament where you play different kinds of sports consecutively. Not exactly an everyday situation.

    Help me understand why this is considered useful for someone trying to learn Swedish? As far as I am concerned, I am increasingly frustated by running into what I consider ”traps” that teach me nothing.

    • 2479

    Try thinking of a different action, like cooking or making a cabinet. "We start by chopping the onions" or "We start by cutting the wood to size". I'm certainly not a native speaker or anything, but I read and watch some Swedish things and I do feel like I've come across "...börja med att..." in 'real' content.

    That said, I feel your pain, there are definitely some sentences in the course that just don't sit in my brain and I end up memorising the answer without really learning anything I could use in my own words.


    Why med att,is" start with to play " a swedish phrase

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