- Forum >
- Topic: Swedish >
- "Det är definitivt en älg."
20 Comments
Ser ut som en älg. Luktar som en älg. Smakar som en älg. Ja. Det är definitivt en älg.
1843
I wrote "It definitely is a moose" and was marked wrong. I know this has a slightly different meaning than "It's definitely a moose". Is there such a distinction in Swedish as well (if so, then how?) or was this translation simply not added yet?
1843
Hm, I don't think so, as "surely" isn't as sure or definite as "definitely", is it? :D I mean, there's still a trace of doubt in "surely".
1748
My impression is that, without further context, the two adverbs are so close in meaning as not to be distinguishable. But I am not a native English speaker.
344
No, despite there being "sure" in the word, it 'surely' actually implies doubt, whereas 'definitely' really implies the absence of it.
1843
Det is just a formal subject here. It doesn't take the gender of the object/animal/person in question. It's like saying "The (previously unknown or unspecified) something or someone is a moose". I think it would be a different matter, though, if in the sentence before, the moose was already mentioned, e.g.: Titta, en älg! Den äter gräs! In this case, den can refer back to älg, therefore it has to be utrum.
As for definitivt: Appending the -t has got nothing to do with älg being neutrum or utrum, it's just that you have to use the adverb form of definitiv (similar to definitely in English).