"One should not beat children."

Translation:Man ska inte slå barn.

April 5, 2015

This discussion is locked.


why can I not write 'man borde inte slå barn'?


My question too. I always use borde never ska.


borde is actually accepted nowaways, but apparently nobody thought to tell the comments about it. :)


Will and Should are very different in English and usually not applied so in language.


I think the reason it's ska is because borde is more like a suggestion or saying "You ought not to..." while ska seems to be used in a stronger fashion in this sentence?


I agree, if you say man borde inte slå barn I'd expect the sentence to continue men det gör man i alla fall ('but one does anyway').


Culturally is it allowed ? In the uk its legal sadly. Many kids were abused including myself.


Oh no, it's been totally forbidden since 1979 (in schools since 1958). It still happens in some cases of course but most people are horrified at the idea. I didn't know it's still legal in the UK, I'm so sorry to hear that.


They (Labour under Blair) actually tried to change it in the early aughts, but the suggestion was met with fervent opposition, and only resulted in permanently injuring your child being outlawed.


Thank you for sharing your experience. Historically unfortunately you're not alone.

I'm honestly unsure why someone downvoted you, but please have my upvote and a lingot.


How about skulle instead of ska


my question, too: why not skulle?


det är också min frågan, fortfarande ingen svar.


Skulle means would.


How about "man får inte slå barn"?


That would be You may not beat children, which is also true but not the same sentence.


One will (ska) not beat children??


"You can/may/will not" have other translations, but those seem to cover the intent of "Man ska inte" much better than "One should not" does.


The intent is actually more like "one is not supposed to", so "should" is proabably the best available approximation.


Okay. But while on the subject, is there a way to explain when "bör" would be preferred over "borde"? I found this sentence a few months ago in which both words are used. I haven't been able to find anyone able to explain the difference between them:

"Ambulanssjuksköterskan är nu angelägen över att åldersgränsen bör införas på energidrycker, man borde vara informativ om vad som kan hända med barn och unga som dricker detta."


Sure. As you probably know, bör is the present tense for böra, and borde is the past tense. (The infinitive is only very rarely used.)

Both languages are a bit weird here: English likes to use the past tense - i.e. "should" - even though "shall" doesn't have the same meaning, and Swedish doesn't really care about whether you use past or present.

Hence, there usually actually isn't a difference in meaning, but bör will often have a connotation of being more sure. You could say that while they both mean "should", borde can be a little closer to "might".

(Of course, if the entire sentence is in the past, it makes no sense to use the present. For instance: Klockan var redan sju, och han borde ha kommit för länge sedan. You can't use bör here.)

Your example follows this pattern. The nurse wants the restriction to be introduced, and thinks that information is a good idea.


Thanks, sincerely. Would I be on the right track then, thinking that of the three expressions "Du ska" is the most 'commanding', "Du borde" the most 'suggestive' and that "Du bör" falls somewhere between them?


Yes, that's a great summary.

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