So what determines the use of allt in this case? Is jag treated as an ett word?
It is always "allt" when it is used separately without a noun:
Allt är förgäves - everything is in vain
But with a noun, it is
all mat - all food
allt vin - all wine
alla människor - all people
"Alla" can also be used without a noun and then it means everybody:
alla var där - everybody was there
But in general, when "Jag" is the subject, one would use the common form of the adverb/adjective? If I had a sunburn, would "Jag ser rött" or "Jag ser röd" be correct?
se rött is an idiom that means 'get angry', in that expression rött refers to the color red, and colors are called the neutral form when you speak about them like that – Jag gillar blått = 'I like blue'.
What you probably wanted to say is that you look red, not see red, and that would be Jag ser röd ut, and as you say, you are common gender so you're röd. Also if you just say Jag är röd 'I am red'.
That makes sense. Tack för förklaring! Getting the subtleties of the language is tough.
I was thinking about it and I realized that "I" am not the subject of the sentence, but the generic "It" is the subject. In that case if I said "It is blue" would I say "Det är blått" or "Det är blå?"
Yes, if you're not the subject but the generic 'it', it needs to be Det är blått. 'It is blue'. (If you're talking about a specific common gender object that is blue, Den är blå.)
We have this idiom in English too! Little used now, but when people start "Seeing red" it means the same thing!
It reminds me Ace of base band...
By the way, why do I have "ha" whenever I write "ville"?
Does this mean that without the "ha" it would translate to something like "It is all I wanted to happen"?
„Everything I wanted to have”. English “to want” can be used as a full verb meaning “to want to have”. Swedish vilja “to want” can only be a modal verb, so you need to add ha to fill the position of the full verb.
More like "That was all I wanted to happen", though I wouldn't use that translation on Duolingo since it leaves the second verb implied. A straighter translation would be "Det var allt jag ville skulle hända".
According to the last several sentences, someone saw a good-looking guy on the beach, swimming under the water, and it was all she/he ever wanted. Still a better love story than Twilight
Is "att" as optional as "that" is in English? Like It was all (that) I wanted. He saw (that) she was upset. etc.
Yes and no. You'll find that the use of att can vary greatly. Some constructions require it, some can't have it, some can have it but don't need it. In this sentence, though, it can't be used.
I think "att" is impossible here, because it is a conjunction, not a (relative) pronoun. It means "that" like in "I hope that the sun will shine tomorrow", not as in "the car that I bought" (only in this example, "that" is more or less synonymous to "which"). I've seen relative clauses introduced with "som" in Swedish. So, could one say "Det var allt som jag ville ha"? Edit: Or could one say "Det var allt vad jag ville ha"?
I think I remember seeing "det är" being used instead of "det finns", maybe in the travel skills. Doesn't it work in the past?
My understanding is that finns is the equivalent of exists and in English we can use is to mean exists (For example to say "There is a house in New Orleans" you are saying that a house exists in New Orleans so you would say "Det finns ett hus i New Orleans"). The Swedes are more strict in preferring to use finns. So with that to say "Det fanns allt att jag ville ha" you would be saying "It existed everything that I wanted" which doesn't make sense.
Also the past tense of finns is fanns. Am I correct native Swedes?
Great explanation! In some cases both ways work in Swedish, but If you say Det är ett hus in New Orleans, that will just mean 'It/That is a house in New Orleans'.
Thanks for the replies. The reason I asked was because when asked to translate that sentence to English I wrote" There was all I wanted" but it's all good now :)
good explanation but i still dont understand how to know if det is "it" or "this", isnt "det är mitt hus" both translated as, "it is my house" and "this is my house" i cant tell the difference. Maybe not important.
det är mitt hus = it is my house
det här är mitt hus = this is my house
det där är mitt hus = that is my house
if you say det är mitt hus (where "det" is stressed) it can also mean "that is my house"
Is this a sentence you would use maybe in a bakery being asked if you would like to have anything else? "Tack, det var allt jag ville ha"
Thanks for your instant reply, Helen! Is it a possible or maybe even a stereotypical answer?