1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "I will never ever leave you!"

"I will never ever leave you!"

Translation:Jag kommer aldrig någonsin att lämna dig!

February 2, 2015



Why are we using "tänker" here instead of "ska" or "kommer att"?


ska works too, the difference between kommer att and ska in a sentence like this is that ska is very clearly a promise. kommer att can of course also imply a promise, and often does, but it doesn't necessarily mean that, whereas ska does.
As berniebud says, tänker is really closer to 'intend to' in meaning. (but all three are accepted answers).


"Tänker" is another way of forming the future tense, although it more closely resembles "Intend" in meaning.


Why is att in such a strange place? I was marked wrong for Jag kommer att aldrig...


I guess you know that a sentence adverbial splits two verbs (in a main clause), e.g. "jag ska lämna dig" and "jag ska aldrig lämna dig", but the tricky thing here is that the sentence adverbial even comes before "att" in "kommer att", right?

Think of "I am never going to leave you" vs "I am going to never leave you". The sentence is about something you will never and not something you will do never. I hope this was not too confusing :).


I just want to expand on your second paragrah and provide the translations in case that makes it easier for the op.

Jag kommer att aldrig lämna dig. = I am going to never leave you

Jag kommer aldrig att lämna dig = I am never going to leave you.

If you're a native english speaker (I'm not sure if you are), you can see that the first english sentence, "I am going to never leave you" kind of makes sense, but it doesn't really convey exactly what you're trying to say, and isn't the best way to say it. That's similar to how it is in the first Swedish sentence.

The second sentence obviously sounds a lot more idiomatic, and is something you would expect someone to say, and the same goes for the second Swedish sentence.


While I am going to never leave you could work in English, Jag kommer att aldrig lämna dig is just ungrammatical to my ears in Swedish. I think if you ever see that from native speakers, it's just from people who don't normally use att in kommer att, so they have no feeling for where to put att. What do you think, Helen, does it sound OK to you?


No, but I thought that the English sentence sounded just as strange :). If it doesn't, then it was a lousy comparison.


Basically you are emphacizing that you are taking the action of not leaving them rather than not taking the action of leaving them. A comparison perhaps would be the more common I will never leave you.


I think jarrettph:s description 'taking the action of not leaving them rather than not taking the action of leaving them' is spot on – and as of now, as far as I can tell, this works in English but not really in Swedish. (To be totally honest, you might sometimes hear this kind of thing in Swedish, but it's an anglicism.)


The English one sounds pretty OK to me, not that that really means a lot since it isn't my native language (and maybe I misread AlecHirsch1s comment), but I was thinking of other things they can say too, like 'Could we not talk about this?' where the negation doesn't really work the same way in Swedish. (Though we might be in the process of importing that 'emphatic not' from English.)


It is strange in that I can't think of a context where you would ever use it, but it does have meaning, at least to me. Maybe I'm strange. :P


'I am going to never leave you' makes no sense to this native English speaker, albeit one whom was never taught grammar at school. Nevertheless, it is not a phrase that one would hear spoken aloud. I do recall hearing 'I am going to leave you never' in a song once. But that was, i assume, because the protagonist wanted to form a couplet with 'weather' in the line following.


What is a "sentence adverbial"? Is it an Engish term, with "adverbial" used as a noun? I've taught English all my life and have never encountered it.


I found the expression here http://blogs.transparent.com/swedish/swedish-sentence-adverbials/. It seems that it does not exist in English though (as you said), so it's probably just a translation of the Swedish expression "satsadverb" (or "satsadverbial").


Different terms are needed for different languages. This term is important when teaching Swedish grammar because a sentence that modifies the whole sentence will go in a special place in the sentence, as opposed to other kinds of adverbials. Also see my longer post about word order: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/8970470


That makes a lot of sense. I guess the confusing thing is that in English, the entire verb phrase moves. So while it is not wrong to say "Jag kommer att aldrig..." it carries a different meaning.


What's the någonsin for? Seems useless to me...


It means ever. It's not useless, it's an intensifier.


But that's not what the English sentence says? It doesn't say "I will never ever", just "I will never".


On the contrary - the sentence is "I will never ever leave you!"


Hmm, okay, I must've been distracted or something not to notice.


i've a difficult time with the word order in this sentence. :(


The strange thing is that the adverbial aldrig någonsin goes between the two parts of kommer att. But as HelenCarlsson pointed out in a previous comment, you would do the same in English in a construction like am going to – you would say I am never ever going to … and the adverbial would go between 'am' and 'going to'. So while it doesn't work exactly the same, it's pretty similar.

[deactivated user]

    Why not 'Jag lämnar aldrig någonsin dig


    That would be "I never ever leave you".


    Aldrig nagonsin is simple will never ever. That's strange for me.


    Word order the third: what about "jag kommer aldrig att lämna dig någonsin"?


    Grammatical, and I'm adding it, but not really standard. You'd use it to really emphasise the "ever".

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