"It is probably a moose."

Translation: Det är troligtvis en älg.

[Lyssnaer]

I feel like this is a particularly Swedish phrase :D...

[Clyde1992]

Is there a particular difference between "troligen" and ""troligtvis"? It seems as though several of the adverbs repeat themselves, with minor variations on the endings. What is the difference between them?

[Arnauti]

I don't think there's really any difference in meaning between those two, at least I can't think of any. troligen is more common and more neutral, troligtvis could be a little more formal and is used less frequently.

[futureishere]

Why is "troligtvis är det en älg" wrong but "Möjligtvis är det så" correct?

[Arnauti]

Troligtvis är det en älg is ok. möjligtvis means 'possibly', that's less likely than 'probably'.
If you say probably, you're not sure but you think the chance is pretty big that it is a moose.
If you say possibly, you're just open to the possibility that it could be the moose, but you didn't say you think there's a big chance it is.

[Alf42]

If it's 'en älg', why is 'den är .. en älg' marked incorrect? I thought det is for ett-words and den for en-words.

[Lundgren8]

The det doesn’t refer to the moose. It’s just a formal subject or a dummy pronoun that is used because the sentence needs a subject, much like it in English it is raining, which doesn’t really refer to anything either.

[Zerr_]

In this sentence, the "it" seems like it would be more referring to the moose, as in "What is it?" "It is probably a moose."

Why is this not correct?

[Arnauti]

When you say 'What is it?', it is unknown what 'it' refers to, so we say Vad är det?. Then when you answer that question, you repeat the same det, because you're answering what the previously unknown det is. So the dialogue would be Vad är det? Det är en älg. If you use det där ('that') or det här ('this'), it works the same way – only the -t versions work in this dialogue.

[Zerr_]

I thought something along those lines, but is there any reason here why it's not den?

[Arnauti]

What Lundgren8 said. It's a formal subject. I wrote a much longer explanation here: https://www.duolingo.com/comment/9708920

tl;dr; if there's no clear indication it's den, it always defaults to det. [when you introduce a subject]

[AaronQualtrough]

awkward when i can't even read english and write "en mus"

[skrats]

I got the question wrong, i used kanske. However it used a word which i've not come across ever in my courses. "Nog" what is its meaning. In this thread it's saying it should be troligtvis.

[Arnauti]

Yes, nog also means 'probably'.

[exqeriment]

It matches you to the closest accepted answer to what you put un.

[exqeriment]

*in

[vanilla_coke]

What is the difference between "kanske" and "troligtvis"? Is "troligtvis" used for nouns?

[Arnauti]

kanske is maybe. It is possible that X is true. I don't say that I believe it's true, only that it could be true.
troligtvis is probably. It is likely that X is true. I believe that X is true (but I'm not sure).

[vanilla_coke]

Oh ok, I couldn't figure out the difference. Thanks!

[tumsi]

Why does "möjligtvis" does not fit?

[Arnauti]

möjligtvis means possibly, it is like kanske and maybe, see my previous comment here which starts with kanske is maybe.

[tumsi]

Thanks for your explanation. Is it usually used by swedish people in the correct way or do they also mix it up? (It think about the German "scheinbar" and "anscheinend". Both have a similar meaning and if you are aware of the difference, it really has an impact which one you use. But most Germans use these words without thinking about their difference.)

[Arnauti]

I think people probably confuse those two in German because they have the same root with schein, but möjligtvis and troligtvis don't have the same root at all so it's not the same thing. Of course people will confuse anything and everything anyway, but I've never noticed anyone mixing up these two. On the other hand, a lot of people have trouble keeping words like ovärderlig (invaluable) and värdelös (worthless) apart.

[hoyunmyoun]

nog v troligtvis?

[Arnauti]

There's no big difference in meaning, but troligtvis is more formal.

[leo-arg]

And antagligen is also the same?

[Ashybuttons]

But it might just be an unusually large reindeer.

[sarahbear31]

It seems there are so many terms/translations for the word "probably". Troligen, troligtvis, nog and förmodligen.. Which one is commonly used?

[Ridunculous]

Why is it "en älg" in this case?

[Arnauti]

It's always en älg, älg is an en gender word. (Not sure if this answers your question or if you were thinking of something else?)

[Ridunculous]

Not sure what I was thinking at the time. Thanks for the answer.

[dave527603]

Anybody have a mnemonic for troligtvis (probably) vs. mögligtvis (possibly)?

[Arnauti]

tro means 'believe'. I guess if you tror something, you think it's true. And if something is möjligt you could think that it may be true?

PS don't mix up möjligt 'possible' with mögligt 'mouldy' :)

[David483540]

Why can't we use "troligt"? Is it not an adverb?

[MarkBorkBorkBork]

It's an adjective.

[deactivated user]

No, its a girl. It just looks like a moose.