"I do not want you to die!"
Translation:Jag vill inte att du dör!
21 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
It's amusing that this ("Jag vill mycket att du dör!") was one of the multiple choice responses to this translation lol
There are so many ways to say "to". How can I differentiate which to use like att, till and I don't know what else.
Till usually means going towards something, like 'ankan simmar till flickan', but att usually seems to be a conjunction (?) joining two clauses
Please correct me if im wrong
116
As I understand it, att can be used in two ways. One way is before a verb, like the english usage "to swim"- att simma. Another way is as a conjunction, like the word "that" is sometimes used in English.
In this sentence, it is the latter. Literally "I don't want that you die"
I was SO close! Why was it not V2 after att? Jag vill inte att dör du? The one time I think about V2 spontaneously and it's wrong!
V2 applies to main clauses (that are not questions). The structure of this sentence is
Jag vill inte [subclause].
So vill is in second place in the main clause. In subclauses, the subject goes before the verb, so it must be … att du dör.
By main clause do you mean independent clause and by subclause do you mean subordinate or dependent clause? Because if that is the case, then this is what I think you are saying: If I translate the sentence as, "I do not want that you (should) die", then in English, "that" is a subordinating conjunction. This means that "Jag vill inte" is the independent clause (V2), which is exactly where "vill" is. So far so good. "Att" functions as a subordinating conjunction, which means that the V2 rule does not apply to "du dör". Therefore "dör" does NOT come directly after "att" and there is no inversion. Jag vill inte att du dör. Förstår jag?
Yes, totally. I think main clause/independent clause and dependent clause/subclause/subordinate clause are just different words for the same things.
Like you say, att is a subordinating conjunction. In a dependent clause, the V2 rule does not apply, but the subject must come before the verb.
If we compare sentences with subordinating/coordinating conjunctions, they can look like this:
COORDINATING Jag vet och du vet
SUBORDINATING Jag vet att du vet
Those two look like things are in the same order, so it may seem that it doesn't matter much which one is which. But then there's the BIFF rule – Bisats Inte Före Finit verb: In a dependent clause, inte must go before the finite verb. So if we add inte everywhere, we get this:
COORDINATING Jag vet inte och du vet inte heller
SUBORDINATING Jag vet inte att du inte vet
In the independent clauses, we still have V2 and inte gets to go after the verb. In the dependent clause, inte sneaks in before the finite verb.
Tack så mycket för det utmärkt svaret. Jag vet nu att jag föstår. Jag vet också att det inte är alltför svårt. :-)
Thumbs up for the detailed answer...i didnt understand any of it but it looks good how its written
- 2901
If you want an object you use 'vill ha' because you want to have it. If you want anything else, I.e. A verb to happen, you don't use 'ha'
- 889
What is the difference with the above translation and "Jag vill inte att du ska dö!"? Doesn't "du dör", mean "you dies"? I obviously missed something from a previous lesson. :)
In swedish, verbs do not change with 1. 2. or 3. person. For example: Jag äter, du äter, han äter. As long as you don't change the tense, the verb does not change. (Probably over simplified, but it works for this level of swedish as a rule)
