1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Pappa kommer att ha tagit di…

"Pappa kommer att ha tagit dina pengar."

Translation:Dad will have taken your money.

March 28, 2015



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


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.")


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.


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


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


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.


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."


well sorry for this but the english translation does not make sense to me and in order to learn the swedish i must first understand the english. shouldn't we say Dad will have your money taken. ??


This version of the English (dad will have your money taken) makes it sound as if dad is going to arrange things so that someone else will take your money. (Dad is going to see to it that your money is taken.) The original sentence (dad will have taken your money) makes clear that dad is the one who will have taken it.

There is something odd about the sentence, though, which is that it seems to be predicting the future (and not a in particularly nice way). Dad's such a cad that he's going to steal your money...... (and your guinea pig will die, and it will rain all week, per Arnauti). But that's not a problem with the grammar - it's a problem with the scenario!


In my experience, we would normally use this construction as a tentative way to say things - to soften the statement, as it were. "Dad will have taken your money" (that's where the money went...) it's a way of saying "Dad took your money" without sounding like a strong accusation (The last form sounds more like: Dad is a thief!)


This sense of the sentence is less likely in Swedish. Most likely this is about future events but reported as seen from a point even farther into the future. Like for instance, talking about events that will take place tomorrow, but seen from a perspective after they already happened. So it can answer a question like, "What will things be like next week?" Answer: "It will have rained all week, your guinea pig will have died and Dad will have taken your money." (sorry about that horrible prospect)


I think they were talking about "Dad will have your money taken", though.


OK, that makes sense then!


Actually you were right on my intent earlier. The sentence from the exercise by itself feels tortured; my example actually is something I might use, in (North American) English, so it is good to know that one doesn't do that in Swedish. Your example with that horrid week works really well, and is I'm sure much more widely applicable and helpful. (Poor guinea pig.)


ok it makes sense now :) thank you


This is a good point. The same construction is also often used to admit some uncertainty: imagine the sentence, talking at a time when the money has gone, to be the short form of "(I think it will turn out to be the case that) Dad will have taken your money".

Swedes might not use it that way, but Brits do.


No, I'm sorry. The sentence order given is the correct one in English.


I agree. There is nothing wrong with this sentence.

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