1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "We are running because it is…

"We are running because it is raining."

Translation:Vi springer därför att det regnar.

February 12, 2015



can we also use eftersom here?


i wonder why eftersom was marked wrong for me


I see you submitted an error report. You were marked wrong for this sentence:

we springer eftersom det regnar

It needs to be vi in Swedish, not "we". :)


oh...whops... sometimes my brain plays mad, always switching swedish-english-german :-)


Tack. I was wondering about that.


Can we use also "för att" in this case?


Yes, that is perfectly fine.


does darfor always need att after?


It's constructed differently with and without att:

Vi springer därför att det regnar 'We're running because it's raining'
Det regnar, och därför springer vi 'It's raining, and therefore we're running'.
Det är därför vi springer 'That is why we're running'.

These are different constructions and you cannot add or remove att in them.


The question I wish to ask will be better phrased in Portuguese, so I hope you know the four "porquês". Briefly,

"Por quê" means "why" as an isolated question, like: A - "He is sad." B - "Why?"

"Por que" means "why" as in a sentence, like "Why is it raining?"

"Porque" means "because", like in the previous example "We're running because it is raining."

"Porquê" is a noun and could be translated as "the reason" or "why"(meaning the same as the former), like "That is why we are running."

So, "därför att/eftersom" means "porque" and "därför" means "porquê"? And how would "por quê" and "por que" be translated?


'Det regnar, och darfor springer vi' doesn't seem to follow the V2 rule...


Oh, but it does!

"Och" is a conjunction, and after it normal word order applies. Thus, the verb is second after "därför".


Thanks! So därför just by itself is "therefore".

So then in a moment of profound philosophical contemplation, would I say:

"Jag tycker därför jag är"

Or maybe

"Jag tycker därför jag finns" ?


I assume you mean as in "I think, therefore I am"? You have the wrong verb - jag tycker means "I think" as in having opinions, whereas jag tänker means "I think" as in using your brain.

The thing is that this isn't one phrase but two, separated by a comma. And hence each one needs to adhere to the v2 rule:

  • jag tänker <- verb is in second position
  • därför finns jag <- verb is in second position

A comma is also advised. Hence: jag tänker, därför finns jag. The phrase is traditionally translated using alltså ("hence") rather than därför.


Thanks for the detailed explanation! I hadn't realized that "därför" is considered to be included in the second phrase. I supposed it makes sense.

So then, if I were to change the order and say instead: "I am because I think" would it be: "Jag finns eftersom Jag tänker" ?


Yeah, that sounds good. :)


Can you say (in your 2nd example) 'Det regnar och därför vi springer' instead? Tack!


No, for the reason Zmrzlina mentioned – och is a coordinating conjunction, it coordinates main clauses. Therefore we have V2 in both parts of the sentence.


From what i've learned from a German learning site: Därför Därför att För att För Are all the same


Then be careful if you use that site, because that is clearly wrong. They are used differently.


Jag hittade den här filmen som har hjälpt mig mycket att förstå skillnaderna: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NklzRWJ_1B0


Tack för filmen!


What does "att" actually mean?


It has two uses.

  1. It is an "infinitive marker", used to introduce other verbs. For instance, in "I like to eat", the word "to" has the same purpose. In this sense, it doesn't really have a meaning per se.
  2. It can also mean "that", when used as a conjunction. For instance, in "She thinks that they're pretty", the word "that" has the same purpose.


It's funny that därför is like therefore, but means basically the reverse.


In the following example, the English and Swedish meanings are the same:
"Det regnar, och därför springer vi"
"It's raining, and therefore we're running"


So, if we want to express cause, we can use "därför att" or "eftersom" interchangeably (except at the beginning of the sentence - then we ought to use the latter). But what if we want to express consequence (like "therefore")?


Then you use därför.


Why are there two words (sometimes three) for everything? Ha! So, does eftersom mean because ... and darfor att therefore?


därför is indeed a cognate of "therefore". In Swedish, you say "we run therefore that it is raining", so to speak.


Looks like there is a bug in your typo recognition system. I mistyped "efterson" and had the answer accepted with a typo (which is correct), however the corrected text at the bottom was the "därför att" version of the sentence with the "därför a" underlined. It appears that the system is printing "därför att" but underlining "eftersom".


Yes, that's actually a common problem - unfortunately, there is little or nothing we can do about it.


Can you use "för" as because without the att?


Yes, though I recommend you use a comma then: Vi springer, för det regnar.


Vi kör eftersom det regnar?


I believe "vi kör" means "we are driving" ...


Can I say Det regnar därför att springer vi?


First, your word order is wrong. There is no inversion after "därför att".

Second, your sentence means "It is raining because we are running". So you've mixed up cause and effect.

I think you are trying to say: Eftersom det regnar, springer vi.


Ah yea sorry for the mix up, what I meant was "vi springer därför att regnar det" and I was focusing on the inversion after därför att. Can you explain why there is not inversion there?


Be careful about the word order. Compare the following, all of which are correct:
1. Vi springer därför att det regnar.
2. Det regnar. Därför springer vi.
3. Eftersom det regnar, springer vi.
4. Vi springer eftersom det regnar.

In 1 the phrase "därför att" is a conjunction introducing a subordinate clause. The subordinate clause has normal word order.

In 2 the word "därför" is an adverb at the beginning of a main clause. After that adverb, the second element must be the finite verb (V2 rule). In other words, here inverted word order is used.

In 3, the complete sentence begins with a subordinate clause. The subordinate clause itself has normal word order. But that clause is the first element of the full sentence. The second element must be the finite verb (V2 rule). So in the full sentence word order is inverted.

In 4, the full sentence begins with the subject "vi" and the finite verb comes second. In the subordinate clause at the end of the full sentence, word order is normal as always.

In sum, a subordinate clause itself has normal word order. But if that clause begins a larger sentence, then that larger sentence has inverted word order.


What about "På grund av"? I got two sentences with this in a "chose the right answer" and it looks like på grund av could be used to replace därför att.


It's not wrong, but it does sound weird, or at least overly formal. Like saying "on the grounds of" instead of "because" here.


Why not eftersom here?


What is the complete sentence that you wrote?


How does att work and when to use it? It's confusing to me.

  1. It has the meaning of "to", when it introduces another verb. For instance: "I like to party" = jag gillar att festa. Not all verbs actually require the att, though - and modals (like "want", "must") never do.
  2. It has the meaning of "that" when it's a conjunction. For instance: "I know that cats are fluffy" = jag vet att katter är fluffiga

In addition, it also occasionally features in set phrases - such as därför att meaning "because".


Is there a subtle difference between eftersom and därför att?


An absolutely minute one if any. The main difference is between those two and "för att", which is somewhat more informal and colloquial.

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