18 Comments
Is the "ska" necessary here? Would "jag vill inte att du lida" not have the same meaning?
The ska is actually mandatory, so the construction doesn't really work like English does. In older Swedish, you could construct is somewhat differently, using a different verb ending, but for the past century - not really. :)
So what exactly is the purpose of "ska"? What does one have to look out for to know when to use it?
You can rephrase it as unidiomatic English like this:
"I don't want that you shall suffer."
The ska serves the same purpose as "shall" here.
I did the translation into Swedish a few exercises ago without the ska and I'm pretty sure it was accepted. Might be something to check, if it shouldn't be.
Do you remember what sentence that was? I appreciate the feedback but it's impossible to evaluate otherwise.
Edit: Or did you mean it was this one specifically?
This one specifically. I had the sentence twice, once for translating in each direction, and only looked at the comments the second time.
Well, that's odd. Jag vill inte att du lida is definitely not correct. Jag vill inte att du lider is better, but certainly not very idiomatic.
Well, if it helps, my translation was exactly "Jag vill inte att du lider" if I remember correctly.
It's the first time I have seen this sentence, and it comes up as a dictation exercise. That is so unfair!
It is very annoying - not to mention ridiculous that it still happens even though it's been an issue for several years.
There's no Swedish word for it; I'd just use the English one. What does that have to do with this sentence?
I fully agree with Lundgren8 with the possible exception of the use of shall which implies a future suffering because it is more a "now' situation
