--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "hfroelandshagen" <gr-tegle@...>
wrote:
>
>
> There is one strange thing about Swedish that I haven't found in
> Danish or Norwegian. For mysterious reasons Swedish sometimes have
> three finite tenses in subordinate clauses. The auxiliary is
dropped
> leaving the participle alone, more often with passive than the
active
> I think.
>
"...den entydigt visar att 16-åringen med uppsåt [har/hade] dödat
14-åringen"
"Michael Englund kallar beskedet om
att spelarna [har/hade/skulle ha] hämtats till förhör
för "chockartat och omtumlande"
Don't remind me of this dropping of auxiliary 'ha(va)' in Swedish
subordinate sentences.
It's OK in Swedish of course, particularly for those writing metric
poetry.
A poet (Ebbe Linde) who rendered Catullus and Horatius in Swedish
versions, once complained about omitting auxiliaries also in main
clauses not being permitted : he meant that it been (pardon: would
have been) a lot easier for the hexameter etc.
But for a teacher correcting essays in English made by Swedish
pupils it is a plague.
I have spilt tons of red ink indicating that something is missing in
the sentences! But to little avail: next time the same thing!
I can't give an explanation for this peculiar thing, but
perhaps 'hava' + the supine (ending it in strong verbs:
har givit 'has given') independent from the perfect participle
(-en et na: är given/et/na 'is given') gives enough information
for the language user to shorten the sentence having the auxiliary
sous-entendu. Good volapük bricolage!
About three tenses: ? - Or is my insertion 'har/hade/skulle ha' an
example of what you mean? It depends on mister Englund having just
received the news about the arrested players or if it had happened
earlier or if it is unconfirmed rumour.
That 'have/had/would have' is possible in all languages, I think.
Lars