1. The WordReference Forums have moved to new forum software. (Details)

Swedish: strax efter

Discussion in 'Nordic Languages' started by WalkerPL, Nov 25, 2012.

  1. WalkerPL Junior Member

    Sweden
    Polish
    Hej!

    Is it correct to translate the following sentence:
    It was only after I had killed him did I realise he was actually innocent.​
    like this?:
    Det var strax efter hade jag dödat honom att jag insåg att han var faktiskt oskyldig.

    The main question is about the expression "only after". Can I use "bara efter" or "just efter"? Are they correct and if yes, what is the difference?


    Thanks for your help! :)
     
  2. Wilma_Sweden

    Wilma_Sweden Moderatös

    Lund, Sweden
    Swedish (Scania)
    We usually use "först" in this context, and I think your English expressions may need some correction:
    1) En: It was only after I had killed him that I realised [that] he was actually innocent.
    Swe: Det var först efter att jag dödat honom som jag insåg att han faktiskt var oskyldig.
    2) En: Only after I had killed him did I realise that he was actually innocent.
    Swe: Först efter att jag dödat honom insåg jag att han faktiskt var oskyldig.

    I put "that" in square brackets where I think it's optional or redundant.
     
  3. WalkerPL Junior Member

    Sweden
    Polish
    Thank you for the reply.

    Why did you not use pluskvamperfekt?

    What about the "strax efter" expression though?
     
  4. Tjahzi

    Tjahzi Senior Member

    Umeå, Sweden
    Swedish (Göteborg)
    She did use pluskvamperfekt. Hade is optional as long as it's clear from the context that the action took place at a given point in time (rather than in an unspecified past).

    Strax is a bit too colloquial for this context, I would say. Also, it's normally used in in the present when referring to the near future.
     
  5. Wilma_Sweden

    Wilma_Sweden Moderatös

    Lund, Sweden
    Swedish (Scania)
    "Strax efter" doesn't highlight the fact that action B happened after action A. Only after/först both highlight this fact. We can highlight this sequence of events in a longer fashion: Det var inte förrän efter jag dödat honom som jag insåg att han var oskyldig. En: It wasn't until after I had killed him that I realised he was innocent.

    I would say that the problem with "strax efter" is not whether it's colloquial or not, it merely states at which time you realised, but it doesn't highlight the fact that you only realised after you'd killed him, when it was already too late.
     
  6. WalkerPL Junior Member

    Sweden
    Polish
    Ok, now I see. Thank you both! :)
     

Share This Page