1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "I trust that you give me an …

"I trust that you give me an answer tomorrow."

Translation:Jag litar på att du ger mig ett svar i morgon.

April 2, 2015



Translating this nearly melted my brain


Same, I was struggling really hard to put it all together. I think this is the first "compound" sentence I've had to translate yet.


The English is incorrect: "I trust that you WILL give me an answer tomorrow"


They're accepted as equal defaults.


På att VS som att. It depends whether the verbs has a direct object or not? So, "det verkar som att hon är trött" but "jag tycker om att i morgon kommer du"?


Non-native here, but I think it's moreso the difference between "about that" or "on that" (literal meaning) and "like" or "as that" or "as to." Your sentences could be then translated "it seems as though she is tired" and "I like that you are coming tomorrow" or perhaps "I am thinking about you coming tomorrow" - not really sure if that is grammatically correct Swedish, either. I don't think the direct object affects which you use. On another note, I think you should say "jag tycker om att du kommer i morgon."


Thanks for the reply.,. The only thing is that I wrote it 1 month ago and I can't even understand what my problem was at that time -_-' About "jag tycker om att i morgon kommer du", why is it wrong? Doesn't the V2 rule apply in subordinate clauses?


No, the V2 does not apply in subordinate clauses (and not in questions either). In subordinate clauses, the subject goes before the verb, and if there's an inte, that also goes before the verb (this is called the BIFF rule – 'bisats inte före finita verbet').

If you want to say I like that you are coming tomorrow, the word order in Swedish would be Jag tycker om att du kommer imorgon. The main clause is
Jag tycker om [subclause]
In the subclause, the subject goes before the verb. Sometimes the verb still ends up in second place, sometimes not, that just doesn't matter in subclauses. But if you add inte everywhere, the difference gets clearer:
Jag tycker INTE om att du INTE kommer imorgon
– after the verb in the main clause, to preserve V2; before the verb in the subclause, because of the BIFF rule.


Thanks for the clarification and the explanation of the BIFF rule, it was very helpful!


Why is på used befor att?


The preposition is necessary, lita på is a phrasal verb where you really need both parts.
att in this case is a conjunction, so it starts a new part of the sentence. So should be in the same part of the sentence as lita.


Well, in "i morgon kommer du" the verb is in the second position (i morgen is the front). Likewise, "du kommer i morgon" has it in the second position. I guess it sounds more natural the second way, but I'm not a native speaker so I could be wrong.


You're right, both structures are good but the latter is more common. It's a matter of information structure. If you put i morgon first, it will be a sentence about what is going to happen tomorrow. If you put du first, it will be a sentence about what 'you' will do tomorrow. There are more situations in life that call for the latter.


I got this as a multiple choice question, and one of the options looked mostly correct except for one thing: it said "imorgon" at the end instead of "i morgon". Is "imorgon" ever used in Swedish, (and when?), or is this simply a wrong choice/a typo?


It is a common variant of i morgon, and I think the only time the distinction matters is if you want to stress that it's "tomorrow" (rather than stressing some other part of the sentence). Then you'd probably use the space (only a guess), since in speech you would generally say it slower and more clearly - but otherwise they're completely interchangeable.


Tack så mycket!


Explain. Word. Order. Please.


It's the exact same word order as in English, if you consider that lita på is a verb with two words working together as a unit.


An event occuring tomirrow is future tense. Should be will give. Using present tense give is imoroper englush.


It works both ways, actually. I realise the future tense version is better, but it corresponds to a slightly different Swedish phrase and we don't want to miss out on the reverse translation by putting that as a default.

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