|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#1 |
Phthirapterist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Good Anvil
Posts: 2,311
|
Attention speakers of Swedish!
Hello,
I was at a friend's place yesterday, and his Japanese girlfriend was doing her Swedish homework (both my friend and I are Swedish, by the way). She became a bit frustrated at what she perceived as a random switch between prepositions. We found nothing in their large Swedish grammar book that addressed this issue (1). We thought about it for a while, and I was able to formulate a tentative rule of thumb about how it works. I have tested this rule on about 50-75 different contexts, and so far it has always worked. However, I was hoping other speakers of Swedish (or other people, of course) could perhaps help me test if this is a good rule or not. The rule concerns "to go to (a place of some sort)", which can be translated in at least three ways: 1. "gå till" (gå till banken, gå till affären, gå till skolan) 2. "gå i" (gå i skolan is the only example I have been able to come up with) 3. "gå på" (gå på utställning, gå på bio, gå på stan) To my friend's girlfriend, it seemed more or less random which preposition to use. However, the rule of thumb I am thinking of is this (notice first, please, that it is still less than 24 hours since I formulated the rule, so it may be totally wrong): 1. You use "till" when you're going to a *location* and where the location itself is more important than what you are actually going to do there. 2. You use "i" when it is a *process* rather than a destination (though as I only have one data point, this could be something entirely else). 3. You use "på" when you're going to an *event*, where the activity you will perform there is more important than the actual location. Consider the following sentence pair: "Jag går på bio" vs. "Jag går till bion" Let us for the moment ignore that "-n" at the end, and concentrate on what the sentences actually say. To me (and to both of my Swedish friend I have talked about this with), the first sentence means that you are going to the cinema, actually going inside, and actually seeing a movie. The second sentence, however, only means that you're going as far as the cinema, but doesn't mean that you're going there to watch a movie. You could as well just meet a friend or have a cup of coffee in the foyer or something. Thus in the first sentence, the *event* of watching a movie is the important fact, whereas in the second sentence, the *location* is more important than what you are actually going to do there. The same difference occurred in all the examples I could come up with since yesterday. However, we're not so sure about the "gå i" part, as you'd say "gå på universitet", "gå på mellanstadiet", "gå på dagis" and so on, all of which implies some sort of process (at least to the same extent that "gå i skolan" is a process) rather than an event. So, what do you think? I invite all kinds of comments and criticism. I have studied linguistics for a year, but it's certainly not my field, so I am perfectly aware that I may be totally wrong on any or all counts. However, having her ask questions yesterday really got me thinking. I'd appreciate all kinds of help I could get in this, and you'll also get the added bonus of helping a cute Japanese girl with her studies! --- (1) I have forgotten the name of the book, but it looked really good, so I could find out if anyone's interested. I think the reason it didn't have an answer for us was that they tried to formulate rules which were too inclusive: rules that would work regardless of the verb. This makes it much more complicated, of course, which is my the rule of thumb we devised only applies to a small subset. |
__________________
"It is not supposed to be funny or annoying or insightful, because it is neither; nor to convey or express any emotion or wit, because it doesn't; nor to be any kind of art, because it isn't; but merely to be repetitive. It is repetition for the sake of repetition; mindless, relentless, remorseless and -- ultimately -- redundant." K. Krishnamurthi, "The Seven Forms of Repetition", 1972. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,371
|
Grandma and logic don't go good to get her.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Phthirapterist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Good Anvil
Posts: 2,311
|
Indeed. But it is very often possible to find good rules for how things work nonetheless. I'm mostly just curious if the explanation I provided yesterday holds any water when scrutinized by those who know these things better than I do.
|
__________________
"It is not supposed to be funny or annoying or insightful, because it is neither; nor to convey or express any emotion or wit, because it doesn't; nor to be any kind of art, because it isn't; but merely to be repetitive. It is repetition for the sake of repetition; mindless, relentless, remorseless and -- ultimately -- redundant." K. Krishnamurthi, "The Seven Forms of Repetition", 1972. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Metasyntactic Variable
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
|
"To go to" translates into "Till gå till" when using the Intertran website.
Can you tell me what "Yorn desh born, der ritt de gitt der gue / Orn desh, dee born desh, de umn børk! børk! børk!" means in English? Intertran can't handle it. Especially that "børk!" part! ![]() |
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 146
|
I don't think there are any good rules for which to use in different situations. In many of those cases (such as "gå i skolan", "gå i kloster", "gå i pension", "gå i terapi"), you simply have to treat them as figures of speech and memorise them. And when in doubt, use "på"
![]() "Gå" literally means "walk", but in pretty much all of your examples except for the "gå till" ones, no actual walking is implied. Note that both "gå i" and "gå på" both have literal meanings as well: "gå i skogen", "gå på bron". Also note that if you're not actually walking on foot, you should use "åka" instead. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,581
|
|
__________________
Thank goodness there are such things as lies. Imagine if everything you heard was true! (Albert Engström) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Phthirapterist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Good Anvil
Posts: 2,311
|
Certainly, but as I said, this rule would apply to only a very limited subset of the cases where "gp till/i/på" translates into "go to" in English. I realise this is pretty useless rule because of its limited application, but it does cut away a lot of your examples (gå i pension, gå i kloster, gå i skogen, gå på bron). The situation is a Japanese girl who's learning Swedish via English, and is bewildered by the apparent randomness in choice of preposition. Your post, if you'll excuse my bluntness, seems to make the same "mistake" as the grammar book we consulted, in trying to find a too inclusive rule.
But indeed, perhaps "gå i skolan" should be treated as a figure of speech rather than as "go to process". It would make everything much easier. However, the distinction between "till" and "på" remains. I also would like to point out that "gå" can have a more general meaning than actual walking, such as "går den här bussen förbi Vasaplatsen?", "gå i kvav", "gå i bitar" and so on. When I first read your post, I thought maybe that would be the key, though. Actual walking = till, no actual walking = på. However, "gå på Liseberg" implies actual walking, and you have to get to the movie somehow. I don't know, maybe I'm mixing up too much semantics after all? |
__________________
"It is not supposed to be funny or annoying or insightful, because it is neither; nor to convey or express any emotion or wit, because it doesn't; nor to be any kind of art, because it isn't; but merely to be repetitive. It is repetition for the sake of repetition; mindless, relentless, remorseless and -- ultimately -- redundant." K. Krishnamurthi, "The Seven Forms of Repetition", 1972. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Phthirapterist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Good Anvil
Posts: 2,311
|
That's because there are too few words in English. The first "to" means "att" in Swedish. Clearly, Swedish is a superior language to English.
Apart from the "børk!", which -Fran- translated (and which you'd have found out the meaning of in a few years when Sweden reinvades the world anyway), the rest must remain a secret until you become a Swedish citizen. It is part of the inauguration rite, and must not be explained or talked about in a public place where just about any kind of foreigner could stumble over a translation. It would ruin the whole point of being Swedish if everyone knew our secret code words and our secret handshake (which, by the way, is wicked cool). Sorry. To make it up to you, consider the following set of facts my sister told me a long time ago: "A kiss" is "en puss" in Swedish. "En kisse[katt]" is "a pussy[cat]" in English. Is this a coincidence or God's way of telling us we should behave in a more friendly manner towards kittens? |
__________________
"It is not supposed to be funny or annoying or insightful, because it is neither; nor to convey or express any emotion or wit, because it doesn't; nor to be any kind of art, because it isn't; but merely to be repetitive. It is repetition for the sake of repetition; mindless, relentless, remorseless and -- ultimately -- redundant." K. Krishnamurthi, "The Seven Forms of Repetition", 1972. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 106
|
Prepositions are tricky. Much of the time they are rather straightforward. In, to, before etc. etc. But sometimes they don't make sense. For instance the Norwegian preposition "i" which corresponds to the English "in" usually signifies being inside som kind of enclosure. However when a Norwegian says "Jeg er glad i deg" he (or she) means "I'm fond of you" or even "I love you".
I think prepositions are among the hardest things to learn in a new language if you base your learning on general rules, but they are quite easy if you just memorises the deifferent usages. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Metasyntactic Variable
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
|
|
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 173
|
Oh, this brings back memories...When I was an innocent schoolgirl (back when birds had tails and feathers) the Powers That Be decided that grammar wasn't necessary when learning languages.(Lgr 69)You were supposed to pick it up somehow anyway when learning a foreign language.
Well, you don't. Luckily we had an English teacher who didn't care about the latest trends, she made sure we had at least a rudimentary understanding. It ought to have been the Swedish teachers job, but he was so incompetent it isn't even funny. Which she knew. |
__________________
Never mind what should be or what might be or what ought to be. It's what's things are that's important" Granny Weatherwax |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,768
|
For pity's sake, people. Why can't you all learn Spanish like all of us in the US will be speaking soon?
|
__________________
My kids still love me. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,581
|
I recognize this! My early school years were during the 70s and I can't recall that they placed much importance on grammar, ever... I am still today very bad at grammar as a subject. That my Swedish is good and my English at least readable, is more due to a "sense of language" and having learnt a lot by heart, and by using the languages frequently. But I make a lot of mistakes that are probably unnecessary, and could have been avoided if we had been properly taught from the beginning!
ETA That's also why I refrain from speaking on the subject of the OP ![]() |
__________________
Thank goodness there are such things as lies. Imagine if everything you heard was true! (Albert Engström) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,930
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,581
|
|
__________________
Thank goodness there are such things as lies. Imagine if everything you heard was true! (Albert Engström) |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Connecticut School for Rumpology.
Posts: 6,030
|
I love to translate English to Swedish, especially for cute Japanese girls. Here is the OP translated into Swedish...
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 314
|
I don't know if this also applies to Swedish, but in Danish to 'at gå i biografen' (to go see a movie in the cinema) means you're going to a private owned place while 'studere' på universitet' (study at university) means that you're going to a public place. You're also going 'på arbejde' (going to work) in Danish, since work places at least in older times were public places.
However, if you're going to a baker's house, it will be 'at købe noget hos bageren' ('to buy something at the baker's'). I can see I have just the o with a stroke in, also called ø in Danish. The funny thing is that in the word høne in Danish we pronounce it like ö, but write it like ö. I have gone to school in the early and late seventies, too. And we did learn grammar rules, and it was drilled it into us at an early age. I've remembered it so much that I could use it when I tried to learn English grammar a while ago. I have taught Danish to immigrants and I can safely say that the learning and knowledge of the use of preposition is something that falls in its place --- very late in the learning of a new language. So tell the Japanese girlfriend not to worry too much. Learning prepostions is the hardest thing... in any language... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Phthirapterist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Good Anvil
Posts: 2,311
|
Hmmm. I would spontaneously say that I don't think this is applicable, but I haven't given it any thought yet. If it is applicable, it's not universally so, as "gå i skolan" and "gå på universitet" ought to have the same preposition, as both schools and universities here are public places. There's also the complication of "till", which could then mean either (see next part below).
And it would be "gå till bageriet" in Swedish. To fit this in, we'd have to assume that "till" corresponds to Danish "i", and is used for private places, whereas "på" is the same, public places. "I" would then be an anomaly (which it seems to be in any case, as it's not widely used). However, that still doesn't explain why we can say both "gå på bio" and "gå till bion" --- the cinema doesn't suddenly turn public just because we go in. Maybe it's just an idiom? Yeah, I think so, too, tough based only on a handful of languages and no real experience with teaching languages... Luckily, it seems to be easier to learn them for me in Japanese than it is for her to lean them in Swedish... |
__________________
"It is not supposed to be funny or annoying or insightful, because it is neither; nor to convey or express any emotion or wit, because it doesn't; nor to be any kind of art, because it isn't; but merely to be repetitive. It is repetition for the sake of repetition; mindless, relentless, remorseless and -- ultimately -- redundant." K. Krishnamurthi, "The Seven Forms of Repetition", 1972. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Phthirapterist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Good Anvil
Posts: 2,311
|
|
__________________
"It is not supposed to be funny or annoying or insightful, because it is neither; nor to convey or express any emotion or wit, because it doesn't; nor to be any kind of art, because it isn't; but merely to be repetitive. It is repetition for the sake of repetition; mindless, relentless, remorseless and -- ultimately -- redundant." K. Krishnamurthi, "The Seven Forms of Repetition", 1972. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
NWO Litter Technician
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 14,950
|
|
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Howling to glory I go
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,379
|
|
__________________
If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 44,251
|
|
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity. Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,930
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,795
|
To confuse matters further, in Norwegian it's "å gå på skule" (note the undetermined form) which means to be in school while "å gå på skulen" means the act of going to school for the day ("No må du gå på skulen" / "you have to go to school now"), but not neccessarily to the school building. That is "å gå til skulen" which anyone can do (while only students can be said to "gå på skulen".) Finally, "å gå i skule" is a general expression for being taught something (over some time) that can apply to apprenticeships, mentorships and other informal forms of being taught (but not self study, there has to be a teacher of some kind involved.)
The use of prepositions is very much idiomatic, and one of the clearest examples of just how idiomatic it is in Norwegian, is whether it's "i" such-and-such placename or "på" such-and-such placename. Both have the same meaning, "in such-and-such place", but same placenames only take "i" and some only take "på". It's "i Oslo", "i Finnmark" but "på Otta", "på Sunnmøre" and the only way to know which is right is to ask the people who live in that particular place. |
__________________
"Our feature on cloud seeding (16 Apr, p40) should have started with the words 'Cannons blazed'. No clergy were set on fire in China's rainmaking experiment." -- New Scientist, 7th May 2005 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|