"You have gotten ten, which is good."
Translation:Du har fått tio, vilket är bra.
Ah. Reading down through other options, it seems that this is a particular tense, not the most general statement. Imagine an Easter egg hunt - "I only got half of what Davy got!" "Well, you -have- gotten ten, which is good (for a little guy)." (see "du fick tio" comment by @Arnauti below)
Really? Du har fått tio, som är bra sounds odd to me – it sounds to me that som in that sentence only extends to tio, (whereas vilket extends to the whole phrase du har fått) – so I'm struggling to come up with a context where that could work.
I mean, Du har fått en bok som är bra would mean 'you have received a book and the book is good'
Du har fått en bok, vilket är bra means 'you have received a book, and the fact that you have received a book is a good thing'
By the way, a substitution of the relative pronoun would clarify Arnauti's meaning: "You have gotten ten that are good." (You may also have gotten others that are not good, but ten of what you've gotten are indeed good.)
Although some people argue that it is not exactly a mistake to use "which" to open a restrictive relative clause, at least in this case I have trouble orienting my mind to the intended meaning without switching "which" to "that". (For a discussion of restrictive versus non-restrictive relative clauses, see my posting on this thread: https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/5862637 .)
I am still wondering how these two types of relative clauses are constructed differently in Swedish, if in fact there is a difference. So, let me explore a little further. The original English sentence here uses a non-restrictive relative clause. So, could it be that "vilket" signals a non-restrictive clause, and "som" signals a restrictive clause?
On the other hand, we are learning that "vilket" would refer either to the overall main clause or to the quantity of 10, while "som" would refer to the 10 implicit items. Could this rather be the overriding determination in choosing between "som" and "vilket"?
So, we seek to construct a test case where a non-restrictive clause in English would translate into Swedish using "som" rather than "vilket". How about -- "You have gotten ten, which you share with others." Here our non-restrictive relative clause refers to the implicit ten items, so would "som" be the correct relative pronoun to use? If so, then the use of "som" would not necessarily correspond to the use of a restrictive clause in English as previously hypothesized.
Furthermore, elsewhere ( https://forum.duolingo.com/comment/8384083 ) we have learned that "vilken" can replace "som" in "Tv:n som vi har är inte ny" (with a restrictive clause in the English).
So, it seems that only the context and possibly the punctuation (non-restrictive clauses are separated by commas) in Swedish would tell us which relative clause construction to use in English.
Thanks for the reply. To follow up, is there a way to clarify that we don’t want the relative pronoun to refer to the overall clause but just to the number (the score of) ten? For instance, we might be talking to an opponent, and we are just saying ten is a good score, not that it is good our opponent got a good score.
Ah, yes - now I see what you mean. I'm sorry, I should have been clearer. We actually use vilket to refer to both in that case. So if the difference is important, context will likely dictate - or a more clarifying construction might be used. You could say e.g. ... vilket är ett bra resultat or similar.
Thanks, again, devalanteriel. By the way, would you take a look at en.wiktionary's entry of "vilken" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vilken? Its usage notes seems to be giving out what I think is bad advice in telling people to use "vem" as a relative pronoun for singular who/whom. Perhaps you might set that straight.