"Det är tre bokstäver i ordet sju."
Translation:There are three letters in the word seven.
36 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I think it's wrong to say that the English sentence here "makes no sense". We all know what it means, so it must make sense.
The problem, rather, is that the English sentence is false, while the Swedish translation is true.
In any case, please see my comment elsewhere on this page for a solution to this "paradox".
When asked to put wordblocks in the right order, the only option is to translate to "There are three letters in the word seven." Semantics versus logic? I think all agree that the English sentence makes no sense. Solving the confusion and frustration could be so simple. Distract one. Change the sentence to "Det är tre bokstäver i ordet sex." Or be more subtle. There are four letters in the word four.
It is fun to be given a statement that appears to be true in Swedish but false in English:
1. Det är tre bokstäver i ordet sju.
2. There are three letters in the word seven.
The solution to this "paradox" is to use more sophisticated translation and punctuation:
1. Det är tre bokstäver i ordet "sju".
2. There are three letters in the word "sju".
3. There are three letters in the Swedish word for "seven".
4. There are three letters in "sju", the Swedish word for "seven".
Yeah, me too, since "sju" is a static word, it shouldn't be translated in this case. We would say "there are three letters in the word 'sju'", exactly like you said, but I didn't want to try it, since I was in a test to skip a level, but came here to check if I could find the answer to the same question, hahahahaha It seems we could find out that this exact sentence is accepted :)
Well, yes. What I mean is, saying "five" shows that you know how to count in English. Saying "three" shows you know what tre means. It's not perfect either way, but since the goal here is to learn what Swedish words mean, it makes sense that the most literal translation would be preferred, even if it results in an untrue English sentence.
I would like to ask about the rule: Det finns verses det är. I always thought det finns was used to say that there is something and it will stay that way for a while, while det är is more of a temporary thing. Clearly the word sju will not change forever, probably, so why is it det är instead of det finns?
Do you know what runes looked like? Take this, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runes#/media/File:CodexRunicus.jpeg
Notice that every letter has a straight line as its base. That was called staf, cognate of English "staff", since it resembles one. The plural of that was stäfver. From there, we get bokstav / bokstäver, although the modern form of staf is stav, and the plural of that is the weaker stavar.
My reaction is that your sentence is grammatical, but not quite what is meant.
I think the problem is that your sentence would be like saying in English "There exist three letters in the word 'sju'." But we don't want to focus on whether there are letters that "exist" in some philosophical or metaphysical sense. Rather, we are saying only that in a certain word there happen to be a certain number of letters, whose existence is taken for granted.
Compare the following:
1. There are soccer stadiums in Sweden.
2. There are 200 people in the stadium today.
I would use "det finns" to translate 1, but "det är" to translate 2.