1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Varför är han sur på dig?"

"Varför är han sur dig?"

Translation:Why is he mad at you?

June 21, 2015


  • 1706

Why does "mad" work here and not "angry?"

  • 1706

I understand that but sur means "sour" or "grumpy," right? As Arnauti said above, in English, this would feel more like "cross," not angry. My question, however, is why "mad," which is a synonym of "angry" in English can't be used here. Is there another Swedish word that means "mad?"


Yeah, if mad works here angry should work fine. I understand that angry has another translation, and that sur isn't supposed to mean shouting-slamming-doors angry like arg, but this specific sentence just doesn't have an exact translation that preserves the word order. In English I'd say, "What did you do to make him grumpy?" to preserve the exact meaning - "Why is he mad/angry at you?" warps the meaning but not the word order. Mad and angry are equally incorrect; to me they are synonyms, and mad (which is the suggested correct translation) doesn't feel any more specifically brooding. To sum up: Just another request for another mildly incorrect translation to be allowed. Jag är ganska sur när jag skriver "angry" och Duolingo säger att jag skulle ha skrivit "mad." :V


The problem with this is that 'mad' for 'angry' is much more idiomatic in US English than UK. As a British speaker, I don't find 'mad' to be an idiomatic translation. The 'insane' meaning of 'mad' is still very much the predominant one here.


"surly with" seems a very good traslation to me. Whether it seems common or not could be, oftentimes, subjective.


Can "sur" also mean angry? Or does it strictly translate to mad?


I'm not really happy with our translations of sur, does anyone have a better suggestion?
sur isn't really 'angry' or 'mad' in Swedish, it's more like 'resentful', 'cross', someone is 'sulking' or 'surly'… I don't know how we should translate it really.


"Cross with" is clear to me, but it's a very British expression. "Annoyed with"?


Maybe "upset" is how we would say it in American English. "cross" works in British English.


This is hard to put words on but I think sur feels a little more slow and brooding where 'upset' might have a little more of 'out of balance because of it'.


What about "sour"? That's something I tried that didn't go through. It's not standard every-day English (more like a type of book-ish expression), but it sounds like it might get that kind of point across..?


I think sour makes perfect sense honestly... it's maybe not the most common phrasing but it is used plenty in some regions, and I can clearly hear my grandmother's voice saing "don't get sour with me!" Lol.


I'd say that's a tad too unidiomatic when there are so many possible translations that though not perfect are clearly better.


I also support the idea of "sour", understanding it like if "sur" is not when something is yelling at you with a knife in his/her hand running to you like crazy. If it's just they're not happy with you for any reason... I don't know, maybe "displeased" or "grumpy"?


Besides that, even if we were to have a really good translation of sur (instead of several reasonably good estimates), another problem is that none of the "[adj] [prep] [pronoun]" constructions really translate well to English when using sur.


I'd say no, that'd be e.g. trött på in Swedish.


All languages have their own characteristic and dificiencies. for sur we have a good word that exactly means like citron.we say ....torshrooترشرو


Could grumpy be accepted in this sentence? There was an earlier sentence in this revision where "sur" translated as that.


Yes, that works fine.


I tried 'why is he grumpy with you' as a translation and the 'grumpy with' part was not accepted...


Report it! It's a fine translation. :)


Very interesting semantic issue! I actually think that 'angry' is maybe a bit better than 'mad' as a translation, due to being associated with more serious issues, eg 'my wife is angry/mad at me for forgetting to put out the garbage' vs 'my wife is angry/?mad at me for committing to go on a fauna survey over the weekend without discussing it with her first'. But it's certainly not clear what is best to do!


What in the world is a "fauna survey"?


It's when you go somewhere to list and take note of how something occurs naturally - like a specific kind of caterpillar in a specific kind of environment. There are flora surveys as well.


This brings back memories. I spent several years doing a water bird survey on a section of Great Salt Lake here in Utah. Wonderful memory!


I translated it as "mad with" but it was marked as an error. It's sometimes difficult to remember I'm supposed to be translating into US English rather than UK English!


It's not really that you're supposed to use US English, but rather that "mad with" is used with feelings, not people. You can be "mad with anger" but not "mad with him".

Obviously, that's a prescriptivist view. I'm not saying you're using your language wrong - just that it shouldn't be accepted in the course.


"Why is he surly with you" seems the best translation to me and it picks up the possible common origins of both the Swedish and English terms in old germanic (the many variants of sur, sour etc.)


It might be the best translation literally but "surly with" really isn't a common phrasing in English.


Tyskarna säger också: Warum ist er s a u e r auf dich? PONS ordbok har flera förslag: to be/be getting mad fam [AE sl to be pissed ] [at sb/sth]; to be pissed off [at sb/sth sl ]; to be sore with sb; to be cheesed with sb; to be peeved at sb for sth. https://de.pons.com/übersetzung/deutsch-englisch/sauer+auf+jemanden+sein


We do say, "Don't get surly with me!" But it's kind of a set phrase. I guess you are right that "surly with" isn't very common. If asking about someone else, we would probably say, "Why is he so surly today?"

Where I live, we would more likely ask, "Why is he so crabby?"

I have trouble thinking of a phrase where "at" or "with" is used ... All I can think of is "mad at" or "angry at."


I think "crabby" would be the best translation of "sur," but I'm guessing it won't work to add it because people aren't usually crabby "at" someone, but just "crabby." To include "at you" in the sentence, one would have to say something like, "Why is he crabbing at you?"

But, if "grumpy at you" is accepted, maybe "crabby" should be added. It's way more common where I live.


Duly noted. I am not entirely convinced it's common enough to be accepted, to be honest, but I'm keeping it open in case other natives agree. :)


Crabby is by far the most common where I live. (but never "crabby at") Grumpy is much less common (but never "grumpy at") Sour - kind of out-of-date (never "at") Surly - kind of out-of-date (never "at") Angry/Mad - the only ones that really fit in a sentence with "at"


Why not say "why does he resent you?"


Resent is a more permanent attitude. You don't resent someone for a day, more like for the entire time you know the person, or until you get over your own jealousy.


I'll add that. It honestly doesn't feel like a great translation, but I can't come up with a better one from English to Swedish, which is usually a good indication that it should be accepted.


why is he upset with you didn't work. Why?


That's generally better as e.g. upprörd.


Is the meaning same as the German sauer? It surely translates to it but I wonder if it's used the same way.


Yeah, pretty much. And also in the lemon taste sense, etc.


But wouldn't be angry then the most fitting word for sur, at least that's how I would always translate sauer to english. German language also has "arg" and in german it has the meaning of bad.


Perhaps the issue is that I only speak German semi-natively, then, and this would be my Swedish influence peeking through. :) I would use sauer auf in the same way I would sur på - which is less strong than "angry at" but has the same general meaning, just not the same intensity.


Well in german you also have the "böse sein" and I would use it synonymously to sauer sein without making a distinction of the intensity. But there is a distinction when talking about a person. When you say that someone is a bad person you would use only "Böse". Arg I would use in german generally when talking about me, when I'm sorry for something or I feel bad about myself.


Upset should also be accepted. .......


That is incorrect English. Is it incorrect Swedish, too? If I were teaching someone English, as you are teaching us Swedish, I would not insist on an incorrect Swedish translation. I would respect your not wanting to promulgate incorrect Swedish, so why do you insist on our using incorrect English? MAD AT is wrong. Why has this been going on for four years with no one fixing it?


Why would you say that "mad at" is wrong? It's an incredibly common expression, mostly I suppose in the US. I honestly can't see any linguist thinking it odd to accept or teach in the slightest.


to be mad at someone is correct English.


Cross should be accepted as a synonym of 'mad'


Sure, we accepted "cross with" already, and I've added "cross at" now as well.


Duo says sour is an option but when I use it, it says I am wrong. Also, I have sent multiple message reports but there are some discussions that will not load. I change browers, it does nothing.

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