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

14 Comments


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Nihil.77swe

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/devalanteriel

Yup! Nicely done. :)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/JoshuaC31

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/devalanteriel

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.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/sesundbackl

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.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/devalanteriel

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.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/JoshuaC31

Thanks for the explanation!


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/A_Copeland

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?


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/devalanteriel

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


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Fabian806285

det fanns fisk i sjön (varför inte ?)


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/devalanteriel
  • det fanns = there was
  • det hade funnits = there had been

https://www.duolingo.com/profile/CDGreeneyes

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.


https://www.duolingo.com/profile/Wilson567993

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.