"Could you carry my bag for me?"

Translation:Skulle du kunna bära min väska åt mig?

February 1, 2015

This discussion is locked.


I am a little confused at the need for both skulle and kunna. Are both always used for "could"?


Not exactly, "Skulle" means "Would" and "Kunna" is the infinitive of "Can", so "Skulle du kunna" would more literally translate to "Would you be able to"


Yes, I think I am getting confused because I know what both mean, but it sounded clumsy to me when I directly translated - your explanation of "would you be able to help" is clearer, thank you!


Could one also say "kunde du bära väskan"?


Won't anyone answer Xavier's (and my) question? The English sentence implies both "would it be possible for you" and "are you willing to do this".


In this sentence why do we use 'åt mig' instead of 'för mig'?


To answer this and the comments above I've looked up the definition of those two words. För can mean for, but it doesn't seem to be possible in this sentence, so I'd go with åt.

för for, for the sake of something or somebody = for the purpose or benefit of someone or something; to satisfy the demands of someone or something Here's a sentence from Duolingo where för is correct: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/9172570

åt -for
Jag har en present åt dig
I have a gift for you


I still have a hard time translating the word "for". :-(


So, in this example one can't use 'väskan' instead of 'min väska' and still convey the same meaning as the latter? Is there a specific reason


Came here to ask the same ^


why not using "för" instead? can someone explain how prepositions in Swedish work?


What is the meaning/use of 'mej'?


I think it's a variant of mig, closer to how it's spoken. Wiktionary marks it as "strongly colloquial", so maybe it's like spelling you as u.


Yeah it is exactly that. The Duo contributors actually mention that in one of the early lessons, saying that on things like Facebook chat etc. you might see "mej" and "dej" which are definitely "wrong" in written form but basically amount to how you would say the things. For English speakers it really makes no sense to learn to write them this way, because for us neither "mig" or "mej" are "phonetic" anyway, so we might as well just learn that "mig" = "may" (pronounced) etc.


Very interesting. This is surprising given that my Harry Potter translation has "mej" spelled out instead of "mig". Come to think of it, it might be only in Hagrid's speech, perhaps in order to emphasize his "colloquial speech".


Plus, it's not like you're saving any letters with those alternative spellings... A bit odd to me indeed.


But we sometimes write "nup" or "nah", or "yep" or "yeah", none of which are shorter than "no" or "yes". It's just a colloquialism but certainly wouldn't be considered correct but just like those "nup/nah/yeah/yep", it makes the whole thing a bit more casual and relaxed rather than using "Yes" on Facebook or something. If you think about how you type on Facebook, "yes" conveys a different meaning to "Yeah". Most of the time, the latter is more friendly, so I'm guessing something similar might apply with "mej och mig". For your interest, Despicable Me was released in Sweden as "Dumma Mej" (Stupid Me) but with that spelling, not "Dumma Mig". I'm guessing it's like aptly spelled, like when we say "dum" and deliberate use that incorrect spelling for irony.


When I inevitably use för instead of åt because I've completely forgotten you can use åt in these edge-cases, will people look confused or is it close enough?

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