Swedish: lett eller ledde

kfz2010

Senior Member
Chinese
In the following sentence:

I november 2017 spelades hockeymatchen mellan Brynäs och Adler Mannheim i Gavlerinken där Thomas Larkin tacklade Daniel Paille så svårt att det lett till åtal och rättegång.

Could you help clarify why it doesn't use "ledde" (past) but "lett" (supine)? Could the supine be used without "har/hade"?

Thanks.
 
  • MattiasNYC

    Senior Member
    Swedish
    Hmmm.... Not sure if I'm right about this, but to me it looks as if "att det ledde" would read better.

    And 'yes', I think "att det lett" is fine - I don't think you need "att det har lett". Perhaps the latter is technically correct (?) but I certainly wouldn't expect it in your average Swedish.
     
    [...] Could the supine be used without "har/hade"? [...]
    It certainly could, but in subordinate clauses only. This is very common in Swedish, absolutely correct, absolutely idiomatic. Even Wikipedia has a good explanation.

    However, for the sentence quoted I agree with MattiasNYC that "att det ledde" would read better. No, come to think of it, and having googled, the usage of lett here is completely incorrect, for it messes up the tenses. [...] där Thomas Larkin tacklade Daniel Paille så svårt att det lett till åtal och rättegång.

    The tackle led to prosecution and trial later. Larkin was recently acquitted by Gävle tingsrätt, four years later. The sentence insinuates that the 2017 tackle had led to prosecution and trial when it happened. This is sheer nonsense, the journalist introducing the fact that prosecution and trial had taken place when the sentence was formulated. A simple nu would save the sentence: [...] där Thomas Larkin tacklade Daniel Paille så svårt att det nu [har] lett till åtal och rättegång. The problem with the sentence is that the use of tacklade (in preterite) makes one expect that lett should be understood as hade lett (in 2017). But the journalist wants to say that the tackle has led to prosecution and trial (now, in 2021).

    As for the perfect/pluperfect without har/hade in subordinate clauses, let me adduce two examples I just made up:
    Jag vet att hon kommit. = Jag vet att hon har kommit.
    Jag visste att hon kommit. = Jag visste att hon hade kommit
     
    Last edited:
    Top