"You have gotten ten, which is good."
Translation:Du har fått tio, vilket är bra.
I'd just like to say to people who aren't native English speakers, 'gotten' is not very good English! (from a British English perspective at least).
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)
Yup! Other accepted answers include You have received ten …, but that's more formal and perhaps a bit more specific than fått, and You have got ten … but that's ambiguous as to whether you already had them or got them just now.
Why can we not use 'som' here? i.e., since both can mean "which", in which context can one be used but not the other?
I would say they are interchangeable, although "vilket" is perhaps the more literal translation. "Vilket" is also more formal.
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'
Upon re-reading this comment much later, I'd like to add that Du har fått tio som är bra would be 'You have gotten ten which are good' – this might make things a little clearer.
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.
Hello, devalanteriel. Is "Du har fått tio, som du delar med andra" a proper translation for "You have gotten ten, which you share with others", and "vilken" would not be correct?
"Du har fått tio, som du delar med andra"
Exactly like that! You seem to be getting the hang of it nicely. :)
What ett? Do you mean vilket?
vilket is a relative pronoun here. It refers back to the whole clause that goes before it (or to "the fact that you have gotten 10). When pronouns refer to a clause, they're always in the neuter.
In my English, "you have got" = du har, "you have gotten" = du har fått
Why isn't the sentence with "ni" accepted, if the same sentence with "du" is accepted?
It should always be accepted, so report it by using the Report a problem button in such cases and we'll add it.
In the multiple choice question I just answered, there was a different error ("vilket jag bra" in place of "är") ... very tricky, can't always assume this has equally paired Ni and Du options
No, that makes just as little sense as if you eradicate the "is" in the English sentence.
If you use som here, it means that the ten of whatever you're gotten are good, in which case the English sentence would have used "are" rather than "is".
Ten could be a score in a game, and it could be the case that ten IS a good score. In this scenario, “som” would be correct, wouldn’t it?
Nope, still vilket, actually. If you use som, it implies that every single one of whatever you're getting is a good one - and that doesn't make much sense for a game score.
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.
It could be more obvious, for sure, but I think they just mean the base form. I'm hesitant about getting into Wiki editing - don't want to go down that rabbit hole. :)
I would, but I find the revision history page confusing and hard to read, to be honest. The usage notes seem fine though. :)