1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Swedish
  4. >
  5. "Min far äter inte kött."

"Min far äter inte kött."

Translation:My father does not eat meat.

July 3, 2015



Is there some reason "My father eats no meat" is an incorrect translation? Are "no" and "not" translated differently?


Yes, it’s min far äter inte kött vs. min far äter inget kött.


Ahh, I see. Tack så mycket!


Is there any situation where you would more likely use far over pappa and mor over mamma? Tack så jättemycket!


Not that I can think of off the top of my head. "Mor" och "far" is basically just a more old-fashioned/formal form of "mamma" och "pappa", so that would be if you were living in a very strict/old-fashioned family.


They're actually used regionally - according to a survey made by Lundgren8, about 10 % use mor och far instead of mamma och pappa.


Is there a difference in the phrasing for: (a) My father is not eating meat (b) My father does not eat meat

(a) is a statement of a single action - maybe he's eating fruit right now. (b) is a continuous state - he is vegetarian



No, Swedish doesn't differ between continuous and simple like that.


As most of the statements, can somebody make it clear whether they refer to the present as for one single happening or they can be interpreted as if they were referring to a habit?


Swedish doesn't make a difference between "doesn't eat" and "isn't eating", so it could mean either.


So, if you want to express a 'progress' that is over and not being done anymore, you add a plus expression to the sentence which makes it absolutely clear? For instance:

He doesn't play football. (This time)

He doesn't play football anymore. (No more)


Yes, we supply additional information if context isn't sufficient. For instance: Han spelar inte fotboll längre, with längre meaning "any more".


Thank you so much!


Is there any difference in putting the negation on the end? Min far äter kött inte.

I saw a book title like this jag älskar dig inte. On here I've seen the sentence jag älskar inte dig


I don't know what the grammatical reason for it is, but I can tell you that no, "Min far äter kött inte" is not a correct sentence, though the other two are both acceptable. My best guess for the difference between those two is the second carries the implication of not loving that person specifically ("I don't love you [but I love him]") or possibly just as a cold statement of fact. The first is more "emotional" so to speak, kind of like negating the phrase of "I love you" as a whole, rather than just "subject verb negation object". That may be the difference, since "my father eats meat" isn't exactly a particularly common phrase that gets thrown around a lot. That's just my guess though, so I may be completely off.

Tl;dr: No, you cannot say "Min far äter kött inte".


The grammatical reason is that inte is a clausal adverb and hence is put in the clausal adverbial position. :)

[deactivated user]

    Sorry, I don't get it: is or isn't "inte" in a clausal adverbial position in "jag älskar dig inte"? And if not, why can it be outwith it?


    The rule doesn't apply with pronouns, for whatever reason. You could say jag äter dig inte but not jag älskar kött inte, for instance. I'm afraid I have no idea why.

    [deactivated user]

      Doesn't matter why, the important thing is to know that it's the pronoun which makes the difference. Tack så mycket för ditt svar!

      [deactivated user]

        Please why is "My father do not eat meat" wrong here. Tack


        The third person singular in English uses "does", like this:

        • I do
        • You do
        • He / she / it does


        My father dose not eat meat.


        You need the correct spelling "does" rather than "dose".

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