1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "There had been fish in the l…

"There had been fish in the lake."

Translation:Det hade funnits fisk i sjön.

March 29, 2015



Are these flections right? 1. Det finns 2. Det fanns 3. Det har funnits 4. Det hade funnits


Yup! Nicely done. :)


Why is hade varit incorrect? And can it be used in any other situations?


hade varit sounds like there were fish in the lake at one point, but then they packed their things and moved to another lake. :) It's perfectly fine for less permanent things.


I don't agree with this. As a swede "hade funnits" or "hade varit" is exactly the same. Also "hade funnits" implies that there had been fish in the lake at one point.


I respect that natives use the language differently, but differentiating between att finnas and att vara is a large part of any Swedish course, and they're purposefully kept a bit more separate than they are in real life for pedagogical purposes. hade varit violates my internal grammar here.


Thanks for the explanation!


Is it possible to use "fisk" as an uncountable noun? "fish" in English is of course uncountable, but should the Swedish be "fiskar", or does "fisk" work here?


Just fish works very well here - in fact, I'd prefer it myself, and it's the default translation.


det fanns fisk i sjön (varför inte ?)

  • det fanns = there was
  • det hade funnits = there had been


In English "had been" implies there were fish in the lake but they are no longer there. Therefore "hade varit" should be correct in my mind.


In this example, we have "fish in the lake" translating to "fisk i sjön", but, in a similar example, we have "reindeer in the forest" translating to "renar i skogen". How would the meanings change if we substituted fiskar for fisk and ren for renar?

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