"They have forced the children to finish their food."

Translation:De har tvingat barnen att äta upp sin mat.

April 1, 2015

This discussion is locked.


It wouldn't be sina mat?


No, mat is an uncountable noun.


"Sin" refers to the subject. So, the children are not eating their food (in their plate), but instead eating the food of "they/adults"... Did duolingo wanted to say that?


No, "sin" refers back to "barnen" here, not to "they". However, it's a good observation of yours. This is the way it works in a sentence like this. Had it being referring back to "they", it would have said "deras". I'm sorry if it's a bit confusing...


Why does sin refer to barnen? Is it because it is closer in the sentence, or some other reason?


Yes, an explanation would be nice; I have always read that "sin" refers to the (3rd person) subject of the clause it appears in, but it seems to me that this sentence has only one clause.


That is in fact confusing. I was thinking so far that SIN was always his/her whereas DERAS was their


Sin/sitt/sina can refer to any third person.


Would it be 'deras' if it were the parents' food.


So "sin/sitt/sina" can be third person plural?


I selected both as I assumed it could mean the children's own food or the parents' food (their food vs their own food) but it marked it wrong. Is there a reason or are the options poorly chosen by Duolingo?


Is the strong form of tvinga not really used? Tvungit wasn't accepted as the supine of tvinga.


When do prepositions of phrasal verbs stand near and when far (in the end of a clause)? Dina föräldrar ser verkligen vackert ut. But here for some reason it is incorrect to say De har tvingat barnen att äta sin mat upp...


I'm confused. Are the children eating their (the person forcing them to eat) food? Or their (the children's) food? I thought sin/sitt/sina was supposed to refer to the 'proporty' of the subject of the sentence (in this case De); so this is basically an adult force feeding his own food to 'the children.'


Why doesn't "att sluta" work here?


"Sluta" cannot take "mat" as an object, it just sounds weird. In Swedish, food is not something you can finish, but something you eat up. You can "sluta jobbet" (quit work, get off) though. And it's perfectly fine to sluta + (att) + verb.


Assume that 'finish' and 'eat' are related in the sentence even when it slightly implies it is a bit much for me.


It's because it relates to 'mat' which is not plural.

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