I still have to digest the swedish grammar structure. There came an owl vs an owl came. Jösses.
You can also say En uggla kom och sa att jag var en trollkarl. The Det kom em uggla... form flows much better but there is nothing wrong with en uggla kom.
Unfortunately it does not accept that translation. Mar-26 2021
I too wonder about this word order.
Can someone explain sa,sade, and sagt?
Sa is the past tense (he said), and sagt is the perfect tense (han har sagt = he has said). Sade is a more written version of sa, but either works in writing, only sa in speech though.
I put sade here, and it said I was wrong.
I have added this translation now
Is this the title of a Roy Andersson movie :)?
I think it's referring to Harry Potter, but I don't know
Go google “A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence” :)
Yes, it is referring to Harry Potter. :)
Could you please explain why one cannot use "en uggla" as the subject of the sentence in Swedish? In other words, how do we figure out when to use the impersonal subject in this type of sentence?
Can some one please explain this addressed issue.
You can also say En uggla kom och sade att jag var en trollkarl. The Det kom em uggla... form flows much better but there is nothing wrong with en uggla kom.
I am confused by the structure of this sentence. 'Det kom en uggla' makes sense to me, but then 'det' is the subject, how does that work with the 'sa'?
Jag ser att båda "Jag var trollkarl" och "Jag var en trollkarl" accepteras. Vilken skulle du säga är naturligare?
I tried "Jag var trollkarl" and it wasn't accepted. I think it's correct to say "Jag var läkare", so I don't understand why the structure of this sentence should be different.