![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I was thinking about "the passive voice", where an example of swedish is given. You can't say "han fick målat dörren". It should be something like "han fick dörren målad".
I don't know if the s-formation of plurals should be mentioned. It is common in everyday speech for people familiar with english in english borrowings, such as zombie, scanner, reporter etc, but it has always been advised against by the Swedish Academy since it became popular, mostly because it is difficult to conjugate in plural definite, although forms such as -sen and -sarna (weird mix form) have emerged.
It says in the article: "An unusual feature is that a sentence beginning with an adverbial phrase (e.g. "In the morning", "Frequently"), also inverts subject and verb, the same as a question would." However, isn't that the same in a lot of Germanic languages? I know it's the same in Dutch and German (although not in English). So is this unusual enough to be mentioned so prominently? Junes 10:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Something should be mentioned about the deponent verbs, as well as other rare, strange verb forms, such as the reciprocal tense...
My SFI teacher gave our class what he claimed was a universal word order for Swedish clauses and sentences, which I've inserted from my notes. I make no claims that I have remembered and transcribed it 100% correctly, but I think it was likely authoritative when he gave it to me.
As I recall, some sentences can consist only of Clause A or only Clause B, and some combine them in that order.
Corrections welcome. -- Steve Rapaport 13:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it should say something more about the reflexive possesive pronoun, but I don't have the knowledge to add it myself. Is it unique to Swedish? What are the exact rules as to when to apply it and when not to? Jag lärer mig svensk and have a hard time getting the nuances correctly... Gerrit C U T E D H 17:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
According to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veta, the past participle of the verb "veta" is "veten". Is this correct? As a native speaker, I must say it looks quite strange. 惑乱 分からん 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
85.8.0.197 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Swedish native, and almost all my relatives say "tusen biljoner" instead of "biljard". What do you think? [ Smiddle / Talk - Contribs ] 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The article says "The imperative is the same as the stem." I thought that the imperative (command) form of the verb was the same as the infinitive. For example, I thought that "Studera" was an infinitive, "Studer-" the stem, and "Studera" the imperative form. Is this wrong?? -- Eptin 18:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
83.227.33.85 ( talk) 09:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know Swedish, so I went here looking for a conjugational chart for the verb to be. The page doesn't have one, but I did find it over on Indo-European copula. It's probably a good thing to include, since most other language pages have one.
- Christopher 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"To write" is a bad example of a strong verb shared by Swedish, German, and English because the English word isn't actually related to Sw. skriva, G. schreiben. Changed to "to bite". Orcoteuthis ( talk) 13:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Swedish has never had four grammatical genders, and the source used to support this statement (Thorell, 1973) neither makes the claim outright nor implies it. The term reale is merely a grammatical category that has traditionally been used for common gender, inanimate words (like korg(en), "(the) basket", or väg(en), "(the) road") and not actually a separate gender. It does describe that natural gender is used for personal pronouns like han ("he") and hon ("she") and contrasts these to the pronouns den and det. When assigning definite articles to traditionally masculine or feminine gender nouns, these are always common gendered (den).
I've corrected this and a few other things and I also replaced Thorell with a more recent Swedish grammar written in English.
Peter Isotalo 12:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Here's another reference that discusses the four-gender system:
(1) | a. | en | ny | bil | b. | ett | nytt | hus |
a | new | car | a | new | house | |||
(2) | a. | Bilen | är | ny. | b. | Huset | är | nytt. |
car+the | is | new | house+the | is | new |
(3) | (huset) | Det | är | nytt |
(house+the) | it | is | new | |
(bilen) | Den | är | ny. | |
(car+the) | it | is | new | |
(pojken) | Han | är | snäll. | |
(boy+the) | he | is | good | |
(flickan) | Hon | är | snäll. | |
(girl+the) | she | is | good |
from:
Källström 1995 is the following reference:
(Källström seems to be a two-gender system promoter and was/is in the Dept of Swedish Language at Göteborgs universitet.) Anyway, it seems that linguists did argue that Swedish had a four-gender system before. – panda ( talk) 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Two more references describing a four-gender system that was used to describe Swedish:
Source: Not arbitrary, not regular: The magic of gender assignment, Marcin Kilarski and Grzegorz Krynicki.
Källström 1996 is the above reference, Tegnér 1892 is: Tegnér, Esaias (1892) Om genus i svenskan [On gender in Swedish]. Stockholm: Svenska Akademiens Handlingar.
The 2nd reference:
Source: Gender Across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men, vol 3 by Marlis Hellinger, Hadumod Bussmann, 2003, p 342.
– panda ( talk) 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The very common noun, "människa", meaning human or man in the sense of mankind, has not been mentioned. This noun is rather odd because it has a feminine grammatical gender in Swedish. Traditionally, when this noun is the antecedent, the feminine form "hon/henne" of the third person singular pronoun must be used regardless of the actual gender of the human that is being discussed, whether it is male, female, unspecified, or mankind in general. I don't know what the rule is in more modern Swedish, but I think "han/honom" would be more likely to be used for someone whose gender is known to be male. In any case the masculine -e form of an adjective could never be used with this noun. 75.175.32.183 ( talk) 01:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit:
The above implies that since pronouns have an nominative, accusative, and genitive forms, then all nouns (not just pronouns) formerly had a nominative, accusative and genitive form that were all different from each other. What is the reference for that claim? And what would the nominative and accusative forms of a noun (e.g., bok, book) have been in the former case system? – panda ( talk) 05:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit:
As stated in the edit summary, just because pronouns today have a subject, object, and genitive form does not mean that they are evidences of traces of a former case system. Also, not sure why "nominative" was no longer associated with "subject" so I've added that back plus some wikilinks that got removed. – panda ( talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(reflexive) - sig sin/sitt/sina
Shouldn't there be a "en" where the dash is, or is it dialect? "En ska tvätta sig varje dag, annars luktar man illa." Mindcooler ( talk) 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading that relative pronouns can be suppressed in Swedish in the same way as in English, or is that wrong? Please see Talk:Relative_clause#copyedit_necessary -- Espoo ( talk) 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what the section Cardinal numbers is about, but it seems to be mostly about some non-grammar issue, such as what number standards Swedish follows. From Higher numbers include: most of the text treats long and short scales used, and so should be removed, except one example of a number composition, f.ex.: 100557 etthundratusen femhundrafemtisju etthundratusen femhundrafemtiosju. From The basic operations include: the content becomes weirdly irrelevant, what the h*ck has trivial arithmetics to do with Swedish Grammar?? A few samples of part numberings (rational numbers is a term of mathematics AFAIK) could be kept, but for the rest, the too numerous examples should be dropped. This is an encyclopedia. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Contains far to many examples. This is not a Swedish course, for that ref to Wikibooks! Prepositions don't affect the inflection of the noun case applied onto, with the following rare examples, still somewhat productive in the language:
There could be a list of prepositions, the above example is an anachronism that might not survive further language development, but the current list of examples should be moved to Wikibooks, just keeping one or a few. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 09:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we seem to have a problem here. For the singular reflexive personal pronouns, the article correctly lists sig, sin/sitt/sina as the forms, as in "Han tog av sig hatten" (lit. "He took off him-REFL hat-the") and "Han ägde sin bok" ("He owned his-REFL book"). And of course, this must be the case for plural forms as well: "De tog av sig hattarna" and "De ägde sin bok". So why does it say "(use de, dem, deras)"?? I would change this myself but don't know how to edit the table in this way. David ekstrand ( talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Again I read this statement in section Conjugating verbs that seems pretty dubious to me:
No!! I instead get an impression of status quo, although I may be affected by the local language habits of Northern Östergötland, where nonstandard forms such as spika/spek/spikit (instead of spika/spikade/spikat for v. "nail") occur. On the other hand, dö/dödde/dött (instead of dö/dog/dött for v. "die") also occur here. I've heard about this "strong verb weakening" before, but citation verily needed: I believe the statement is incorrect, unless someone provides a source. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I just made this edit. While both are used in spoken language, at least "dens" is never considered correct Swedish, but "våran/eran" might be accepted in some informal situations. That "dess" would be considered awkward seems to be an opinion. Sources are a huge problem here. It seems like a number of self proclaimed experts have put their own thoughts into this article. / Grillo ( talk) 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed this: "Certain nouns borrowed from Latin use Latin inflections, or Swedish inflections added to the root after removing the Latin singular ending, such as faktum, the plural of which is fakta." stated in the section about plural forms. Interestingly, facta is the plural form of factum in Latin, so I do not believe the "such as" is proper, having nothing uniquely Swedish about fakta being faktum's plural form. Girondaniel ( talk) 16:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The statement "Nouns of common gender ending in -an do not inflect." under "Plural forms" is not correct I think. Most of the common nouns of common gender I can think of inflect in plural, for example "gran", "kran", "klan", "plan", "indian", "amerikan", "förmodan", even though the statement is correct for for example "gisslan". Of course there are exceptions to rules, but is this actually a rule? Rilfo ( talk) 20:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Swedish grammar. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be added to the table for ease of reference? The usage warning can remain, but the pronoun is a fact. -- Evertype· ✆ 14:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC) No it should not ! It is a Finnish word and Finnish only. Boeing720 ( talk) 06:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Not to be anal, but the man who named one of the Swedish genders "utrum" was seriously off the track. Contrary to what it may seem, "utrum" is not the opposite of "neutrum".
Let's start from what "neutrum" means: it is literally "neither one", viz. neither gender of the two principal ones, i.e. masculine and feminine. It is the traditional name for the neutral gender, then (in the languages which have three genders, that is, or at least a vague concept of them). Now the opposite to "neutrum" is "utrumque" (= both). "Utrum", on the other hand, has an interrogative force and means "which one of the two?". Do Swedish grammarians read this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.7.44.60 ( talk) 21:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Would someone please explain (in the article) the difference between the supine form and the past participle? I'm learning Swedish and at this point, I think they're the same thing. DBlomgren ( talk) 23:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Past participle is rarely used. Past participle can't be used on all verbs - otherwise the significance can be absurd. Example:
The most used past participle is when stung by a wasp or bee.
These were all only written (if ever spoken generally, then centuries ago). They had nothing to do with the verb itself or stong or weak, just 1:st, 2:nd and 3:rd person plural. An "o" was added in the end of the verb's present tense. Example:
singular, 1-3rd person of the verb "att vara" (to be)
plural (old)
plural (modern)
There is no difference between persons in the present tense. And this is the same for all verbs. Danish and most Norwegian dialects follow the same pattern. Boeing720 ( talk) 04:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This sentence must have been written by a Swede: in English we would write: No scholar today considers... or more idiomatically: in general, the bla bla is no longer considered...
The reason we avoid "all" constructions in the negative can be appreciated by asking yourself: how cloudy exactly has the day been, when "the sky isn't cloudy all day"? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3167:66A1:1588:91FA ( talk) 07:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I was thinking about "the passive voice", where an example of swedish is given. You can't say "han fick målat dörren". It should be something like "han fick dörren målad".
I don't know if the s-formation of plurals should be mentioned. It is common in everyday speech for people familiar with english in english borrowings, such as zombie, scanner, reporter etc, but it has always been advised against by the Swedish Academy since it became popular, mostly because it is difficult to conjugate in plural definite, although forms such as -sen and -sarna (weird mix form) have emerged.
It says in the article: "An unusual feature is that a sentence beginning with an adverbial phrase (e.g. "In the morning", "Frequently"), also inverts subject and verb, the same as a question would." However, isn't that the same in a lot of Germanic languages? I know it's the same in Dutch and German (although not in English). So is this unusual enough to be mentioned so prominently? Junes 10:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Something should be mentioned about the deponent verbs, as well as other rare, strange verb forms, such as the reciprocal tense...
My SFI teacher gave our class what he claimed was a universal word order for Swedish clauses and sentences, which I've inserted from my notes. I make no claims that I have remembered and transcribed it 100% correctly, but I think it was likely authoritative when he gave it to me.
As I recall, some sentences can consist only of Clause A or only Clause B, and some combine them in that order.
Corrections welcome. -- Steve Rapaport 13:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it should say something more about the reflexive possesive pronoun, but I don't have the knowledge to add it myself. Is it unique to Swedish? What are the exact rules as to when to apply it and when not to? Jag lärer mig svensk and have a hard time getting the nuances correctly... Gerrit C U T E D H 17:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
According to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/veta, the past participle of the verb "veta" is "veten". Is this correct? As a native speaker, I must say it looks quite strange. 惑乱 分からん 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
85.8.0.197 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Swedish native, and almost all my relatives say "tusen biljoner" instead of "biljard". What do you think? [ Smiddle / Talk - Contribs ] 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The article says "The imperative is the same as the stem." I thought that the imperative (command) form of the verb was the same as the infinitive. For example, I thought that "Studera" was an infinitive, "Studer-" the stem, and "Studera" the imperative form. Is this wrong?? -- Eptin 18:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
83.227.33.85 ( talk) 09:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know Swedish, so I went here looking for a conjugational chart for the verb to be. The page doesn't have one, but I did find it over on Indo-European copula. It's probably a good thing to include, since most other language pages have one.
- Christopher 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
"To write" is a bad example of a strong verb shared by Swedish, German, and English because the English word isn't actually related to Sw. skriva, G. schreiben. Changed to "to bite". Orcoteuthis ( talk) 13:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Swedish has never had four grammatical genders, and the source used to support this statement (Thorell, 1973) neither makes the claim outright nor implies it. The term reale is merely a grammatical category that has traditionally been used for common gender, inanimate words (like korg(en), "(the) basket", or väg(en), "(the) road") and not actually a separate gender. It does describe that natural gender is used for personal pronouns like han ("he") and hon ("she") and contrasts these to the pronouns den and det. When assigning definite articles to traditionally masculine or feminine gender nouns, these are always common gendered (den).
I've corrected this and a few other things and I also replaced Thorell with a more recent Swedish grammar written in English.
Peter Isotalo 12:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Here's another reference that discusses the four-gender system:
(1) | a. | en | ny | bil | b. | ett | nytt | hus |
a | new | car | a | new | house | |||
(2) | a. | Bilen | är | ny. | b. | Huset | är | nytt. |
car+the | is | new | house+the | is | new |
(3) | (huset) | Det | är | nytt |
(house+the) | it | is | new | |
(bilen) | Den | är | ny. | |
(car+the) | it | is | new | |
(pojken) | Han | är | snäll. | |
(boy+the) | he | is | good | |
(flickan) | Hon | är | snäll. | |
(girl+the) | she | is | good |
from:
Källström 1995 is the following reference:
(Källström seems to be a two-gender system promoter and was/is in the Dept of Swedish Language at Göteborgs universitet.) Anyway, it seems that linguists did argue that Swedish had a four-gender system before. – panda ( talk) 00:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Two more references describing a four-gender system that was used to describe Swedish:
Source: Not arbitrary, not regular: The magic of gender assignment, Marcin Kilarski and Grzegorz Krynicki.
Källström 1996 is the above reference, Tegnér 1892 is: Tegnér, Esaias (1892) Om genus i svenskan [On gender in Swedish]. Stockholm: Svenska Akademiens Handlingar.
The 2nd reference:
Source: Gender Across Languages: The Linguistic Representation of Women and Men, vol 3 by Marlis Hellinger, Hadumod Bussmann, 2003, p 342.
– panda ( talk) 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The very common noun, "människa", meaning human or man in the sense of mankind, has not been mentioned. This noun is rather odd because it has a feminine grammatical gender in Swedish. Traditionally, when this noun is the antecedent, the feminine form "hon/henne" of the third person singular pronoun must be used regardless of the actual gender of the human that is being discussed, whether it is male, female, unspecified, or mankind in general. I don't know what the rule is in more modern Swedish, but I think "han/honom" would be more likely to be used for someone whose gender is known to be male. In any case the masculine -e form of an adjective could never be used with this noun. 75.175.32.183 ( talk) 01:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit:
The above implies that since pronouns have an nominative, accusative, and genitive forms, then all nouns (not just pronouns) formerly had a nominative, accusative and genitive form that were all different from each other. What is the reference for that claim? And what would the nominative and accusative forms of a noun (e.g., bok, book) have been in the former case system? – panda ( talk) 05:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit:
As stated in the edit summary, just because pronouns today have a subject, object, and genitive form does not mean that they are evidences of traces of a former case system. Also, not sure why "nominative" was no longer associated with "subject" so I've added that back plus some wikilinks that got removed. – panda ( talk) 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(reflexive) - sig sin/sitt/sina
Shouldn't there be a "en" where the dash is, or is it dialect? "En ska tvätta sig varje dag, annars luktar man illa." Mindcooler ( talk) 03:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading that relative pronouns can be suppressed in Swedish in the same way as in English, or is that wrong? Please see Talk:Relative_clause#copyedit_necessary -- Espoo ( talk) 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what the section Cardinal numbers is about, but it seems to be mostly about some non-grammar issue, such as what number standards Swedish follows. From Higher numbers include: most of the text treats long and short scales used, and so should be removed, except one example of a number composition, f.ex.: 100557 etthundratusen femhundrafemtisju etthundratusen femhundrafemtiosju. From The basic operations include: the content becomes weirdly irrelevant, what the h*ck has trivial arithmetics to do with Swedish Grammar?? A few samples of part numberings (rational numbers is a term of mathematics AFAIK) could be kept, but for the rest, the too numerous examples should be dropped. This is an encyclopedia. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Contains far to many examples. This is not a Swedish course, for that ref to Wikibooks! Prepositions don't affect the inflection of the noun case applied onto, with the following rare examples, still somewhat productive in the language:
There could be a list of prepositions, the above example is an anachronism that might not survive further language development, but the current list of examples should be moved to Wikibooks, just keeping one or a few. ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 09:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we seem to have a problem here. For the singular reflexive personal pronouns, the article correctly lists sig, sin/sitt/sina as the forms, as in "Han tog av sig hatten" (lit. "He took off him-REFL hat-the") and "Han ägde sin bok" ("He owned his-REFL book"). And of course, this must be the case for plural forms as well: "De tog av sig hattarna" and "De ägde sin bok". So why does it say "(use de, dem, deras)"?? I would change this myself but don't know how to edit the table in this way. David ekstrand ( talk) 17:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Again I read this statement in section Conjugating verbs that seems pretty dubious to me:
No!! I instead get an impression of status quo, although I may be affected by the local language habits of Northern Östergötland, where nonstandard forms such as spika/spek/spikit (instead of spika/spikade/spikat for v. "nail") occur. On the other hand, dö/dödde/dött (instead of dö/dog/dött for v. "die") also occur here. I've heard about this "strong verb weakening" before, but citation verily needed: I believe the statement is incorrect, unless someone provides a source. Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 13:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I just made this edit. While both are used in spoken language, at least "dens" is never considered correct Swedish, but "våran/eran" might be accepted in some informal situations. That "dess" would be considered awkward seems to be an opinion. Sources are a huge problem here. It seems like a number of self proclaimed experts have put their own thoughts into this article. / Grillo ( talk) 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed this: "Certain nouns borrowed from Latin use Latin inflections, or Swedish inflections added to the root after removing the Latin singular ending, such as faktum, the plural of which is fakta." stated in the section about plural forms. Interestingly, facta is the plural form of factum in Latin, so I do not believe the "such as" is proper, having nothing uniquely Swedish about fakta being faktum's plural form. Girondaniel ( talk) 16:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The statement "Nouns of common gender ending in -an do not inflect." under "Plural forms" is not correct I think. Most of the common nouns of common gender I can think of inflect in plural, for example "gran", "kran", "klan", "plan", "indian", "amerikan", "förmodan", even though the statement is correct for for example "gisslan". Of course there are exceptions to rules, but is this actually a rule? Rilfo ( talk) 20:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Swedish grammar. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be added to the table for ease of reference? The usage warning can remain, but the pronoun is a fact. -- Evertype· ✆ 14:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC) No it should not ! It is a Finnish word and Finnish only. Boeing720 ( talk) 06:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Not to be anal, but the man who named one of the Swedish genders "utrum" was seriously off the track. Contrary to what it may seem, "utrum" is not the opposite of "neutrum".
Let's start from what "neutrum" means: it is literally "neither one", viz. neither gender of the two principal ones, i.e. masculine and feminine. It is the traditional name for the neutral gender, then (in the languages which have three genders, that is, or at least a vague concept of them). Now the opposite to "neutrum" is "utrumque" (= both). "Utrum", on the other hand, has an interrogative force and means "which one of the two?". Do Swedish grammarians read this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.7.44.60 ( talk) 21:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Would someone please explain (in the article) the difference between the supine form and the past participle? I'm learning Swedish and at this point, I think they're the same thing. DBlomgren ( talk) 23:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Past participle is rarely used. Past participle can't be used on all verbs - otherwise the significance can be absurd. Example:
The most used past participle is when stung by a wasp or bee.
These were all only written (if ever spoken generally, then centuries ago). They had nothing to do with the verb itself or stong or weak, just 1:st, 2:nd and 3:rd person plural. An "o" was added in the end of the verb's present tense. Example:
singular, 1-3rd person of the verb "att vara" (to be)
plural (old)
plural (modern)
There is no difference between persons in the present tense. And this is the same for all verbs. Danish and most Norwegian dialects follow the same pattern. Boeing720 ( talk) 04:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This sentence must have been written by a Swede: in English we would write: No scholar today considers... or more idiomatically: in general, the bla bla is no longer considered...
The reason we avoid "all" constructions in the negative can be appreciated by asking yourself: how cloudy exactly has the day been, when "the sky isn't cloudy all day"? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:3167:66A1:1588:91FA ( talk) 07:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)