1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Jag tillhör samma kategori."

"Jag tillhör samma kategori."

Translation:I belong to the same category.

April 3, 2015



Ok, why is it kategori and not kategorin?


That's just how "samma" works, it always goes with an indefinite noun. There are a few others like "nästa" and "fel" that work similarly.

This one trips me up a lot, although it's actually quite logical. "Samma" itself is always definite, so making the noun it's talking about definite is unnecessary. To say "samma kategorin" in Swedish would be rather like saying "the same the category" in English. I suggest just trying to remember "samma" as meaning "the same", instead of just "same". Hopefully with time it will just "sound right"!


what would this be relevant to? im struggling to think of a situation


If someone were to classify themselves (e.g. a morning person, or a pessimist, or an introvert) you could say, "Jag tillhör samma kategori."


Can we put Att in front of Samma?


No, when you put att after a verb it's because it's attached to a following verb in the infinitive. But samma isn't a verb.


a question regarding pronunciation: in which cases are we supposed to merge an s with the preceding r to that sh-like sound? apparently not here, but is there a rule for it?


In English, it's only 2 syllables: "Samesies!"


In English you'd say 'in' not 'to'. The sentence as it stands doesn't make sense. The general rule is people are 'in' and objects are 'to'.


As a native English speaker (which I assume you are too) I see no problem with either "to" or "in" here. But maybe my brain has already been Swenglishised. :)


I get quite a lot of Google hits for 'belong to the same category' (10 x more than for 'in'), but maybe they were all written by Swenglishised bots in India. As a Swedish native speaker however, I'd say that belong in a category would ideally be translated into Swedish as hör hemma i en kategori. In practice there'll be a lot of overlap, but ideally.

Edit, my search above wasn't for humans, just for 'belong in/to' in general. If I look at I belong in/to the same category, I get 8,550 for in and 1,640,000 for to. It's a very rough measure, but still.


If I've been Swenglishised it's in Boston rather than India. I used "to". But I agree that either works.


Yup, both are accepted, but belong to is much more common. And it's closer semantically too, as I explained in my previous comment.


In this case, I think in would be used as a directional way, as if one is "pointing out" to someone a group that they should be in .


I honestly hadn't quite realized until I read this, but at least for me there's a difference in connotations between the English prepositions. To use a similar sentence:

to belong to - simply implies membership:

'I belong to the same category'
I am officially/factually a member of the category; that category is something I do currently belong to.

to belong in - feels something somewhat more like an opinion, almost like an assertion with an implicit should (and possibly implies a suggested change):

'I belong in the same category'
I should be considered a member, or I should do something to be recognized as one, or even it is good/correct that I am already a member; that category is something I should belong to, whether or not I officially do.

Overanalysis aside, is that anything like the difference you were explaining between tillhöra and höra hemma i? I wouldn't be surprised to hear so, given the English connotations of the word 'home' (I almost described my second usage as 'is/would be at home in')

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