oooh! fånga! fängelse!
really? can it be?
oh no,on second look no it cant be. sorry
They are indeed related.
in German it's even more obvious:
"fangen" vs "Gefangnis"; the second means "caughtness" literally (caught = gefangen)
He succeeds. In the other unit it said the dog ate the cat.
:'( Stackars katt.
What is the general rule when you have two verbs sequentially with no preposition? Is the general rule that you connect them with att, or that you leave it out? I am trying to figure out if försöker is an exception, or if it follows the normal rule.
Are få and fånga related? (-nga being a suffix or something)
It appears they are, but I don't think -nga is a suffix, but rather that there are two verbs that've developet into different meanings from a common root.
Could "capture" also work here? Currently not accepted.
I think "capture" works, as well, and I'll report that.
is there something like a general rule when att is needed and when it isn't?
It's not needed when you use the verbs brukar, försöker, behöver, and vill. Probably others.
So there is no rule as such - just some words need and some don't?
Separately - is brukar also a verb in Swedish (as well as an adverb)?