1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Frågan fick inget svar."

"Frågan fick inget svar."

Translation:The question got no answer.

March 17, 2015



"The question got no answer" is not gramatically correct in English. We would say "The question had no answer" we would never say the first one, even if it is word for word a translation. It just doesn't make sense.


They mean different things.

  • The question had no answer = No answer existed for the question
  • The question got no answer = The question was asked, but not answered


You are right about the meaning but as I have told about possible swedish translations in English it doesn't sound right. Instead of got you might say the question received no answer.


That is also accepted, I presume.


'Got no answer' for the second definition may be technically correct but it is never used (and does not sound good at all). Better to use 'got no response' , or better still 'received no response'.


devalanteriel is correct in differentiating the meanings of "got" versus "had". Nevertheless, something sounds a little off about "The question got no answer". It is not a problem of grammar but one of semantics. Let me attempt to put my finger on it.

Suppose Person A asks Person B a question. If Person B gives an answer, it would go to Person A, not to the question. So, in the negative we would normally say "Person A got no answer", rather than "The question got no answer", although the latter version vaguely resembles the correct passive construction "The question did not get answered". To use "the question" as the subject in an active statement, it would be better to choose a more appropriate verb -- "The question elicited no answer".

Although "The question got no answer" is not the most natural way to express the idea in English, this direct translation of the Swedish is nevertheless grammatical, if we think of it as an active construction, rather than as a faulty passive construction. It is equivalent to "The question did not get an answer". In casual speaking, we can easily accept this statement, if we liken a question to a mailroom slot into which answers can be deposited like letters and messages. If an answer comes in for a question, then the question gets an answer. If no answer came, then the question got no answer.


True that! A more natural English eqivalent for this sentence would probably be "The question was not answered."

But I'd also say that this is probably one of those instances when we people of the discussion section spend too much time trying to develop elaborate philosophies that would hopefully make things more correct, when we know it's really best to let it be for the sake of simplicity and convenience in teaching a sentence:)


Perhaps a more grammatically correct answer for the English translation would be "The question received no answer"?


Lovely false friend with German here.


What would the present tense version of this be? I can't seem to recall it.


Correction, får is present tense, att få is the infinitive. :)


I'm a bit confused, why in the translation the negative is associated with the verb, I thought inget/ingen mean that you negate the object "the question got no answer"


You're not wrong. They relate like you think:

  • frågan fick inget svar - the question got no answer
  • frågan fick inte något svar - the question did not get an answer

I'm assuming it's for pedagogical purposes.


I just used "The question got no answer" and it was marked as correct, so I suppose they've added it now.


We haven't changed it, both were accepted all along, but I think Makie was confused about our choice of main translation, which should probably be changed into The question got no answer instead, so I'll try to change that now.


whats wrong with " the question didn't get answered"


The question got any answer was marked wrong. Why?


What did you say? If you said something like "The question did not get an answer" then I can help you...


The question "got no" answer, is so grammatically incorrect that it is used as a sarcastic joke poking fun at extreemly ignorant and usuallyl illiterate people. This is the first real mistake I've seen in this excellent program. At least thats how english is spoken here in California.


What do you find wrong about it? Just to be clear, it means "got" as in "received", not as in "has got".


The question went unanswered


Just to "confuse the enemy", at our grammar school it was strictly forbidden to use "get" and "got" in our English language lessons. Should one creep into an essay or something, it meant writing hundreds and hundreds of "lines". Eg: "I must not write get nor got in my essays". Alltså strängt förbjudet!!!


Got no is not common in English, maybe a street slang might say it that way, but you'd be more inclined to say didn't get an answer than got no.


We do accept that as well.

The problem is that both "got no" and "did not get an" are idiomatic in Swedish. So if we want to have exercises asking you to translate into both, we need to have versions using unidiomatic English. It's not optimal, but I think it's a sacrifice required to better teach the Swedish phrases.

Learn Swedish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.