1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Jag vill inte att du ska lid…

"Jag vill inte att du ska lida."

Translation:I do not want you to suffer.

March 30, 2015



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.


M.r Hinz, should this order work with all verbs or just with.. lida...


It's a general word order, yes.


Would the same sentence be used to express that you don't want someone to suffer at this very moment?


Yep, that works.


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.


I read frequent references how Swedish has changed in comparatively recent terms. Has the language changed so much within the last 100 years or so?


The word order is more like "I don't to you want suffer." Two part question
a. Which word does the "att" belong to? The English version it clearly belongs to "suffer"
b. When can I tell that the "du" goes in between the "att" and the infinitive word?


The att here is not the infinitive marker, it’s the conjunction ’that’, so the literal translation is more like: I don’t want that you shall suffer which may make more sense?


Thanks, that sort of helps. I think one of the hardest things for me is that Swedish and English are at so different with our uses of att-på-för-om-som... and to-that-if-too-for...

  • 2148

In a similar vein to your translation, would "I do not want that you should suffer" be correct? The sentence is correct in English, albeit a little outmoded, but I should like to know whether I should report it.


That would also be correct, but the translation they've put as the correct one is more direct. It is nonetheless correct :)


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.


so how do you say succotash


There's no Swedish word for it; I'd just use the English one. What does that have to do with this sentence?


Ah, cheers. :)


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

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