"Pappa kommer att ha tagit dina pengar."

Translation:Dad will have taken your money.

March 28, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Family or not, call the police!


"At this time tomorrow, dad will have taken your money." "Vid den här tiden imorgon kommer pappa att ha tagit dina pengar."

Because today is Sunday and Systembolaget isn't open until tomorrow. Maybe this clears things up for you.


As a native (S.E) English speaker there is absolutely nothing wrong with this sentence. "My money is gone"/"Dad will have taken it" appears to reflect upon an earlier conversation where you (as owner of the money) have discussed with Dad taking the money somewhere (the bank maybe?) If you are a lazy teenager and sleep in, you may find the money gone when you awake - hence the conversation in my example


Your usage is totally correct, but to me it is a Britishism. :) I would say "Dad must have taken it" or "Dad probably took it" in your situation.


This doesn't work in Swedish, the comments on another sentence indicate. This tense only applies to the future in Swedish, but if you want to make a theory about the present, you'd better use väl: Pappa har väl tagit dina pengar. ("Dad has probably taken your money.")


Sounds like a sentence from a country song!


My favourite fictional one on that topic is "You Stole My Heart, You Stole My Dog, But You Ain't Gonna Steal My Chevy". :)

Source: http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=330


Is "money" ever used in singular?


Only in the sense of "coin", but even so, it's oldfashioned and rare at best.

Edit: Actually, it has one additional sense as well, but that's a bit advanced... it can also mean lump one-time sum of something, usually a gift. Definitely requires context to learn when appropriate.


Cool, thank you! So how would you use it to say "I have a 10 kronor coin"? If so, how? Thanks!


That would be Jag har en tia most likely, but tiokronorsmynt if you want to say "coin" explicitly. I know you're asking about the peng but I really want to stress that it is not in common use today.


Sure! Thanks a lot


I think the future perfect tense makes for really weird sentences when there is no context. It's talking about the future, but as if it already happened. "Dad will have taken your money before you have time to get to the bank and stop him."


Dad has some addiction or dependency perhaps. Reasonable sentence in my view.


why does "should" not work here?

dad should have taken your moeny as well?


kommer att ha tagit is future tense, indicating something that has not happened yet. should have taken is not future tense, so it doesn't work here.


That translates to "Pappa borde ha tagit dina pengar".


If you mean you think "The father will have taken your money." should be accepted, I'm afraid you're incorrect. That would need to be in the definite like in English; "Pappan/fadern (depending on your level of formality) kommer att ha tagit dina pengar."


This structure seems to be used not just to talk about some action that is expected to be complete at some point in the future, but to make conjectures like we would in English with "must," as in "Dad must have taken your money." Is this accurate?


It's certainly possible, but without proper context I would not make that assumption.

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