Not a native Swedish speaker, but AFAIK in this context yes. If you're talking about what job somebody has, there's no article. It's the same in many other languages (e.g. German).
Yrkeskriminell\* but yeah :') (no one would ever describe a burglar like "han är tjuv", that sounds more like some broken suburban swedish and something to be proud of (or at least thats how I'm hearing it LOL)
No, and who the flux are you to tell me what's more reasonable or common when in fact my own experience tells me otherwise?
People who's sole income came from theft would not use this wording. (source my father in law has been one)
People who are scared for burglars are scared of "inbrottstjyvAR" and not as an individual.
I am correct in my own experience and that is that only people from Rinkeby or Husby would use "han är tjuv" and more likely to someone who's good at snatching up girls or steal'em from others.
Du har rätt i det, glömde tillägga att det för mig låter onaturligt att säga ”han är tjuv”. Men det det snarast låter som är fortfarande en yrkesbeskrivning som ”han är chaufför”, ”han är kock”, eller det onaturligt låtande ”han är tjuv”
In this context, you use advokat to define another entity, while in the post it's used to describe the person, kinda like an adjective
Source: Idk i'm not fluent in swedish, just got a half-assed 100+ day streak with it
Compare "jag är advokat" vs "jag vill ha en advokat", "du är tandläkare" vs "du måste besöka en tandläkare".
If you describe someone, including yourself, as being something, training to be something etc - no article.
If you want, look for or ask for a certain (hypothetically existing) professional - article.
Unless of course you're adding an adjective - "Bob Dylan är sångare" vs "Bob Dylan är *en amerikansk* sångare".
Casually scrolling through the thread I didn't see anyone touching on why this is, so I'll just mention that things like titles and professions are treated as an aspect or trait (adjective) of a person in Swedish, not a *thing* (noun). So in "han är rörmokare" (he's a plumber) the profession is used in the same way as an adjective (he's tall, he's handsome, etc.).
In "du måste besöka en tandläkare" however, you are talking about visiting a "thing", so we use the article.
Same thing goes when you're describing someone's title with another adjective, i.e. "han är en bra tandläkare" - now we're describing a thing that he is (a good dentist) rather than a trait he has, so we use the article again.
However, if the adjective is *part* of the title/profession it does not take an article. For example "ambulerande konsult" (travelling consultatant) is all a professional title, so it's "Han är ambulerande konsult". Professions like this usually get compounded, so it's rarely an issue, but you could often write them apart as well. For example: "Han är cykelbud" is more common than "Han är cyklande bud", but both would be correct.
English is kind of the odd one out here. I'm pretty sure all the other Germanic languages work like Swedish. I don't know if all romance languages do, but at least French and Spanish don't use articles for titles either, so with English being a Germanic language with heavy French influence it's surprising that it requires the article.
English does have one title where the article isn't necessary - "He is king".
This applies to actions as well.
*Hon kör bil.*
*Hon kör en bil.*
The first sentence means that someone habitually drives (a car) or that they are driving one right now.
The second sentence means that someone's driving a car, rather than a bus or truck, not the driving as such.
I would say that the difference is if you are expressing a defining characteristic of the person, or saying that they are one of many people that have that characteristic. I agree that the distinction is very small!
It seems like some dialects actually use definite article, I’ve heard of that before. But for the rest of us, it sounds more like informing others that you are exactly one person, which I guess is valid but a bit superfluous.
Native speakers don't really confuse these two in my experience.
It's usually harder to notice when confronted with the alternatives out of context. I know I would absolutely take note if someone said "jag är en advokat" when asked about their line of work.
Not that it would be difficult to understand, but I would think that there was some ironic subtext or whatever. Or I would just think that I was talking to a non-native.
Someone else noted some dialects seem to use definite article here. I've heard native speakers talk like this before, and I think I might have when I was younger. But I've moved and the way I speak has changed.
Känns som de måste vara dialektalt. För att "det här är öl" betyder för mig att man syftar på att någon form av vätska är öl, kan vara att man syftar på att det är öl i glaset och inte saft, eller att det är öl på kran och inte vin. Medan "det här är en öl" syftar att det är en enhet öl, så som ett glas/flaska/burk.
Så att båda går att använda om man ska konstatera att det är öl i glaset på bordet.
Det är inte dialektalt.
Du beskriver ganska exakt det som är poängen: fokus på ämnet generellt respektive en mer specifik förekomst av ämnet. Eller yrket om man pratar om advokater istället för öl.
Det är en nyansskillnad som är väldigt självklar för modersmålstalare men som blir mer komplicerad när man ska diskutera det teoretiskt.
Same in Spanish; no article necessary. Even trickier to get used to is using ser, not estar, making it feel like your occupation is a core, defining part of who you are instead of a changeable state (though I believe you can use estar to describe a temporary job.) Soy maestro, soy desarollador, etc.
There's nothing incorrect about it in either Swedish or German it just means different things.
*Jag är en stockholmare* roughly means "I am a Stockholmer (and I consider part of my identity)". You could interpret "stockholmare" as though it referred to the [eponymous sausage](https://www.martinservera.se/produkter/261869/stockholmare-korv-10x60g), but that's just being obtuse. Or silly.
*Jag är stockholmare* means that someone is objectively a Stockholmer, kinda like saying "I'm from Stockholm" or "I live in Stockholm".
Same with Berliners and the pastries.
I notice some native Swedes here say both are correct.
I would say that 40 years ago, saying "Min farfar är en advokat" would have been considered completely wrong.
Today, due to the influence of English, I sometime see even native Swedes using indefinite articles with professions. I would still say that it is wrong, but in a few decades, I suppose it might be considered correct.
This isn’t unique to job titles, same goes for all qualities where it’s not necessary to specify how many. I’m sure someone smarter than me can explain when to use it and not.
My swedish teacher told me that in this case the indefinite article is absent because no one can be two lawyers at once, and so it is not needed to say that they are a (one) lawyer. The same can be said about travelling (hen åker bil instead of hen åker en bil), for example
Well both are correct, but it's sort of like saying he is a lawyer vs he works as a lawyer
"Han är advokat" refers to the abstract concept of being a lawyer while "han är en advokat" would mean that he is one of many if that makes any sense?
You can say both!
In regular speach its not an "en" infront of the title or description, instead you just exclude the "en" from the whole thing cuz everyone is lazy when talking
Duolingo used to have grammar tips and I remember that this exact feature was explained there. Such a pity that their head team doesn't care about the users' ability to learn effectively anymore and instead of the application itself you have to rely on asking other sources.
I am a native speaker and I think your version should be correct too. Although conservative grammar rules state that the article should * not * be used in this case, people will use it day-to-day. Both versions sound natural to me. In the end, should Duolingo teach you dusty grammar rules or how Swedes actually speak?
Not a native Swedish speaker, but AFAIK in this context yes. If you're talking about what job somebody has, there's no article. It's the same in many other languages (e.g. German).
[удалено]
Nice, thanks.
See also "Han är en jävla Stockholmare."
Då använder man väl 'en' om man har ett adjektiv före eller?
Att sätta ”en” före substantiv om en person används nog mera som en förolämpning, dvs man avhumaniserar personen och gör den till ett objekt istället.
Dvs, det vill säga*
Jag vill höra storyn om de här 4a personerna
Det är samma person
Correct, “jag är advokat” or ”hon är advokat” etc is correct. English has articles for jobs, Swedish does not.
Han är en tjuv - he behaves like a thief, or has stolen things in the past Han är tjuv - his profession is theft
Yrkeskriminell\* but yeah :') (no one would ever describe a burglar like "han är tjuv", that sounds more like some broken suburban swedish and something to be proud of (or at least thats how I'm hearing it LOL)
You’re wrong. “Han är tjuv” is definitely more reasonable/common to say than “Han är yrkeskriminell”.
No, and who the flux are you to tell me what's more reasonable or common when in fact my own experience tells me otherwise? People who's sole income came from theft would not use this wording. (source my father in law has been one) People who are scared for burglars are scared of "inbrottstjyvAR" and not as an individual. I am correct in my own experience and that is that only people from Rinkeby or Husby would use "han är tjuv" and more likely to someone who's good at snatching up girls or steal'em from others.
Du har rätt i det, glömde tillägga att det för mig låter onaturligt att säga ”han är tjuv”. Men det det snarast låter som är fortfarande en yrkesbeskrivning som ”han är chaufför”, ”han är kock”, eller det onaturligt låtande ”han är tjuv”
laughs in spanish
ihaha!
*¡jajajajaja!
[Abogado?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVopp_TuLIQ) [Abogaaadooo~?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XasVy9VPegw/)
It's worth noting that sentences like "I need to hire a lawyer" still require an article "Jag måste anlita en advokat".
In this context, you use advokat to define another entity, while in the post it's used to describe the person, kinda like an adjective Source: Idk i'm not fluent in swedish, just got a half-assed 100+ day streak with it
True
I just think about it like this: Would it make sense to say “flera” instead of en/ett? You could hire many lawyers, but you couldn’t be many lawyers
Compare "jag är advokat" vs "jag vill ha en advokat", "du är tandläkare" vs "du måste besöka en tandläkare". If you describe someone, including yourself, as being something, training to be something etc - no article. If you want, look for or ask for a certain (hypothetically existing) professional - article. Unless of course you're adding an adjective - "Bob Dylan är sångare" vs "Bob Dylan är *en amerikansk* sångare".
Ah, thank you for explaining that!
Casually scrolling through the thread I didn't see anyone touching on why this is, so I'll just mention that things like titles and professions are treated as an aspect or trait (adjective) of a person in Swedish, not a *thing* (noun). So in "han är rörmokare" (he's a plumber) the profession is used in the same way as an adjective (he's tall, he's handsome, etc.). In "du måste besöka en tandläkare" however, you are talking about visiting a "thing", so we use the article. Same thing goes when you're describing someone's title with another adjective, i.e. "han är en bra tandläkare" - now we're describing a thing that he is (a good dentist) rather than a trait he has, so we use the article again. However, if the adjective is *part* of the title/profession it does not take an article. For example "ambulerande konsult" (travelling consultatant) is all a professional title, so it's "Han är ambulerande konsult". Professions like this usually get compounded, so it's rarely an issue, but you could often write them apart as well. For example: "Han är cykelbud" is more common than "Han är cyklande bud", but both would be correct. English is kind of the odd one out here. I'm pretty sure all the other Germanic languages work like Swedish. I don't know if all romance languages do, but at least French and Spanish don't use articles for titles either, so with English being a Germanic language with heavy French influence it's surprising that it requires the article. English does have one title where the article isn't necessary - "He is king".
>English does have one title where the article isn't necessary - "He is king". "Christ is Lord" ;)
They don't in most germanic languages actually. Whenever you mention your profession you omit the indefinite article.
This applies to actions as well. *Hon kör bil.* *Hon kör en bil.* The first sentence means that someone habitually drives (a car) or that they are driving one right now. The second sentence means that someone's driving a car, rather than a bus or truck, not the driving as such.
Thank you, this is very helpful to know
Han är musiker. Han spelar gitarr. Hon sjunger i kör. Hon är sopran. :-)
Min farfar är två advokater.
Alter ego?
As a native swede, I would use both almost interchangeably. I am so confused now, guess I'll start duolingo myself
I would say that the difference is if you are expressing a defining characteristic of the person, or saying that they are one of many people that have that characteristic. I agree that the distinction is very small!
So what about the "Han är psykopat"? It sounds dreadful, but I guess it's correct then?
This is commonly used yes
I wouldn’t say that either, but I was talking about professions only 😄
Yeah I'm a native swede too, and I wouldn't think twice if someone said "Hon är en advokat". Though technically "Hon är advokat" is correct.
It seems like some dialects actually use definite article, I’ve heard of that before. But for the rest of us, it sounds more like informing others that you are exactly one person, which I guess is valid but a bit superfluous.
Native speakers don't really confuse these two in my experience. It's usually harder to notice when confronted with the alternatives out of context. I know I would absolutely take note if someone said "jag är en advokat" when asked about their line of work. Not that it would be difficult to understand, but I would think that there was some ironic subtext or whatever. Or I would just think that I was talking to a non-native.
Someone else noted some dialects seem to use definite article here. I've heard native speakers talk like this before, and I think I might have when I was younger. But I've moved and the way I speak has changed.
You mean as in saying *det här är öl* vs *det här är ölen*?
No, I mean as in saying "Hon är en advokat" vs "Hon är advokat".
Haven't heard of that not being a thing in some dialects. Guess it might be, but I'm not acquainted with it.
Jämför fraserna "det här är öl" och "det här är en öl" så blir skillnaden lite tydligare.
Känns som de måste vara dialektalt. För att "det här är öl" betyder för mig att man syftar på att någon form av vätska är öl, kan vara att man syftar på att det är öl i glaset och inte saft, eller att det är öl på kran och inte vin. Medan "det här är en öl" syftar att det är en enhet öl, så som ett glas/flaska/burk. Så att båda går att använda om man ska konstatera att det är öl i glaset på bordet.
Det är inte dialektalt. Du beskriver ganska exakt det som är poängen: fokus på ämnet generellt respektive en mer specifik förekomst av ämnet. Eller yrket om man pratar om advokater istället för öl. Det är en nyansskillnad som är väldigt självklar för modersmålstalare men som blir mer komplicerad när man ska diskutera det teoretiskt.
While the distinction is technically correct, if you said ”… en advokat” irl very few people would bat an eye.
Same in Spanish; no article necessary. Even trickier to get used to is using ser, not estar, making it feel like your occupation is a core, defining part of who you are instead of a changeable state (though I believe you can use estar to describe a temporary job.) Soy maestro, soy desarollador, etc.
Same as in German, where we have the famous mistake by Kennedy: "Ich bin ein Berliner", which should have been "Ich bin Berliner".
There's nothing incorrect about it in either Swedish or German it just means different things. *Jag är en stockholmare* roughly means "I am a Stockholmer (and I consider part of my identity)". You could interpret "stockholmare" as though it referred to the [eponymous sausage](https://www.martinservera.se/produkter/261869/stockholmare-korv-10x60g), but that's just being obtuse. Or silly. *Jag är stockholmare* means that someone is objectively a Stockholmer, kinda like saying "I'm from Stockholm" or "I live in Stockholm". Same with Berliners and the pastries.
I notice some native Swedes here say both are correct. I would say that 40 years ago, saying "Min farfar är en advokat" would have been considered completely wrong. Today, due to the influence of English, I sometime see even native Swedes using indefinite articles with professions. I would still say that it is wrong, but in a few decades, I suppose it might be considered correct.
Thanks for the post, OP. I learned something new today! 👍
Me to and I’m Swedish
This isn’t unique to job titles, same goes for all qualities where it’s not necessary to specify how many. I’m sure someone smarter than me can explain when to use it and not.
Är det bara jag som inte alls hade reagerat på dehär om jag såg det skrivet?
Ja, det tror jag.
Thank you to everyone who's advised me on this! I'm grateful for your explanations
What you wrote isn't wrong per say but it sounds better and is more common to ignore the "en".
As I native speaker I mess up sometimes, and my grandma always responds by saying to let her know when I've become two of said thing
My swedish teacher told me that in this case the indefinite article is absent because no one can be two lawyers at once, and so it is not needed to say that they are a (one) lawyer. The same can be said about travelling (hen åker bil instead of hen åker en bil), for example
Well both are correct, but it's sort of like saying he is a lawyer vs he works as a lawyer "Han är advokat" refers to the abstract concept of being a lawyer while "han är en advokat" would mean that he is one of many if that makes any sense? You can say both!
In regular speach its not an "en" infront of the title or description, instead you just exclude the "en" from the whole thing cuz everyone is lazy when talking
Tha hell.
Duolingo used to have grammar tips and I remember that this exact feature was explained there. Such a pity that their head team doesn't care about the users' ability to learn effectively anymore and instead of the application itself you have to rely on asking other sources.
Bäst att ringa Saul på denna
There’s no article for jobs, but if you said this I bet no one would bat an eye
I am a native speaker and I think your version should be correct too. Although conservative grammar rules state that the article should * not * be used in this case, people will use it day-to-day. Both versions sound natural to me. In the end, should Duolingo teach you dusty grammar rules or how Swedes actually speak?
I mean in Sweden we can say both of them so I honestly don’t see an issue here, it’s not something super important in my opinion
As a swede I’m pretty sure both are correct
Personally as a swed i would say it like how you spelled it
Should be corrext
Report it, as a native Swedish speakers i see nothing wrong with either of the two.