"Hon skulle komma efter honom."

Translation:She was going to come after him.

February 26, 2015

10 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/Austin211825

Word for word, these future preterite constructions look like something else in English. How do you differentiate in swedish? For example if I wanted to say "she would come after him" as in describing something someone might have done habitually in the past, rather than something someone was going to do in future.

October 3, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/Rakhelii

Okay, I tried: "She would be coming after him." To me that makes the best sense in English, but it wasn't accepted.

August 27, 2016

https://www.duolingo.com/jayagmon

The two correct solutions are conflicting. "She would come after him" means she still intends to come. "She was going to come after him" means that she would have come, but no longer intends to. The correct way to phrase the first sentence is "she would have come after him", that way both sentences have the same meaning.

February 26, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Arnauti

The thing is that the Swedish sentence covers both those, but She would have come after him would be Hon skulle ha kommit efter honom.

March 27, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/emmiecannoli

To find out if "skulle" is referring to "would" or "was going to" is it a matter of context?

January 26, 2018

https://www.duolingo.com/HoroTanuki

how would one say "she should come after him"? do you also use "skulle"?

December 19, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Arnauti

should seems to have several meanings, but for the most common one (which is like 'ought to'), that would be hon borde …

December 20, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/devalanteriel

I see your point, but that's not necessarily the case. For instance:

As he looked back, he immediately knew that she was going to come after him.

February 26, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/Annikajns

Agreed, I think they try and avoid using 'have' to avoid confusion with the perfect tense, but it's unclear without it.

March 27, 2015

https://www.duolingo.com/loladesu

No, that's not fully correct. Although, yes, those sentences could mean what you said in ONE context, both of them have the same practical meaning in the context of, say, explaining a complex plan involving multiple people. Think of a travel itinerary where people arrive from multiple locations, or a schedule of speakers at an event, or the narration over a montage in a heist movie.

July 1, 2018
Learn Swedish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.