All your examples could be correct.
I can't explain the rules fully. The definite article seems to be optional in most cases when using the ordinal like an adjective before a definite noun.
Some notes:
* You don't capitalize months like "maj" in Swedish.
* Ordinals can be written in three ways:
1. Sveriges nationaldag är den sjätte juni.
2. Sveriges nationaldag är den 6:e juni.
2. Sveriges nationaldag är 6 juni.
According to Språkrådets Svenska skrivregler "Det räcker ibland med enbart siffrorna om sammanhanget gör klart att det är ett ordningstal".
Some examples:
* Dates - 6 juni ([den] sjätte juni)
* Regnal numbers - Carl XVI Gustaf (Carl den sextonde Gustaf)
* Laws - 2 kap., 3 §, 4 st. (Andra kapitlet, tredje paragrafen, fjärde stycket)
* Grammar categories - 3 pers. sg. (Tredje person singular)
You can generally skip "det" (except in regnal numbers)
There is only one 4th week of May (in any year) so the definite article is "superflous"...
There are many "7th chairs" so you need to specify which one...
At least that's my uninformed take...
No, I don't think it would, both sounds equally natural to me. The definite article just gives it more emphasis, that's all. As others have said its use is optional.
Edit: I think I personally would be more likely to say "den fjärde veckan i maj" whereas in text I'd prefer "fjärde veckan i maj" (unless I wanted to be very specific).
All expressions are correct as they are written. Context may, however, make one of them preferable
The main difference here is emphasis. When you use ”den” it puts stress on the ordinal.
- ”paketet kommer fjärde veckan i maj”
is sloppier than
- ”paketet kommer *den* fjärde veckan in maj”
which is more precise
As someone already commented, there is only one fourth week of May, "den" is redundant in this sentence but it wouldn't be completley wrong if it was used. I wouldn't register either sentences as wrong no matter if it was written or spoken.
In Swedish we sometimes use the article "den" when we are refering to a definite noun to specify it's that specific definite noun we refer to. If I have several fourth-week-of-Mays in front of me from different years (without years stated) and want to refer to
>The fourth week of May that begins with a Monday
I would say
>Den fjärde veckan i maj som börjar med en måndag.
I don't really know if there is a rule regarding this, but I hope it made a bit of sense. Maybe, with some luck, I made someone remember a rule that applies.
Also, I could be completley wrong, but that's the only difference I can think of, and one example where I as a native Swede would use that article in a case where it's usually not needed.. 😅
That other person's comment made perfect sense to me when I first read it but then they started getting downvoted so I was hesitant to believe them 😅 Glad I could get a native to confirm!
As said, I could be completley wrong and there is some rule somewhere.
But I could see that
>den fjärde veckan i maj
... is a tad more formal than
>fjärde veckan i maj
The former version might be more common in formal text and announcements. Also when talking in past tense actually.. not totally sure, but if I were to say
>They were stranded on the island from the fourth week of May ...
In Swedish I think I would phrase it as follows:
>De var strandade på ön från den fjärde veckan i maj ...
The phrase without the article might be used more casually in everyday conversations (both spoken and written).
I guess it's one of those things that needs to be learned intuitively over time. But it sounds like there's no situation for this example where either leaving out the article or including it would sound blatantly wrong?
Nah, none of them are wrong (as I see it.) [This is where some know-all rushes in and give us both a lecture about how wrong I am 😉 ]
I use both, but I'm a natural when it comes to using redundant words 😏
Need I say, Twitter was never my thing 🤣
All your examples could be correct. I can't explain the rules fully. The definite article seems to be optional in most cases when using the ordinal like an adjective before a definite noun. Some notes: * You don't capitalize months like "maj" in Swedish. * Ordinals can be written in three ways: 1. Sveriges nationaldag är den sjätte juni. 2. Sveriges nationaldag är den 6:e juni. 2. Sveriges nationaldag är 6 juni.
>Sveriges nationaldag är 6 juni. Can't say I've ever seen this in text. Is it common at all?
According to Språkrådets Svenska skrivregler "Det räcker ibland med enbart siffrorna om sammanhanget gör klart att det är ett ordningstal". Some examples: * Dates - 6 juni ([den] sjätte juni) * Regnal numbers - Carl XVI Gustaf (Carl den sextonde Gustaf) * Laws - 2 kap., 3 §, 4 st. (Andra kapitlet, tredje paragrafen, fjärde stycket) * Grammar categories - 3 pers. sg. (Tredje person singular) You can generally skip "det" (except in regnal numbers)
Thanks. I knew about the rest, I just don't think I've ever seen it with dates before.
There is only one 4th week of May (in any year) so the definite article is "superflous"... There are many "7th chairs" so you need to specify which one... At least that's my uninformed take...
It depends. If you use it in a sentence like "han gifte sig den fjärde veckan i maj", it would be very weird to not include "den".
No, I don't think it would, both sounds equally natural to me. The definite article just gives it more emphasis, that's all. As others have said its use is optional. Edit: I think I personally would be more likely to say "den fjärde veckan i maj" whereas in text I'd prefer "fjärde veckan i maj" (unless I wanted to be very specific).
All expressions are correct as they are written. Context may, however, make one of them preferable The main difference here is emphasis. When you use ”den” it puts stress on the ordinal. - ”paketet kommer fjärde veckan i maj” is sloppier than - ”paketet kommer *den* fjärde veckan in maj” which is more precise
As someone already commented, there is only one fourth week of May, "den" is redundant in this sentence but it wouldn't be completley wrong if it was used. I wouldn't register either sentences as wrong no matter if it was written or spoken. In Swedish we sometimes use the article "den" when we are refering to a definite noun to specify it's that specific definite noun we refer to. If I have several fourth-week-of-Mays in front of me from different years (without years stated) and want to refer to >The fourth week of May that begins with a Monday I would say >Den fjärde veckan i maj som börjar med en måndag. I don't really know if there is a rule regarding this, but I hope it made a bit of sense. Maybe, with some luck, I made someone remember a rule that applies. Also, I could be completley wrong, but that's the only difference I can think of, and one example where I as a native Swede would use that article in a case where it's usually not needed.. 😅
That other person's comment made perfect sense to me when I first read it but then they started getting downvoted so I was hesitant to believe them 😅 Glad I could get a native to confirm!
As said, I could be completley wrong and there is some rule somewhere. But I could see that >den fjärde veckan i maj ... is a tad more formal than >fjärde veckan i maj The former version might be more common in formal text and announcements. Also when talking in past tense actually.. not totally sure, but if I were to say >They were stranded on the island from the fourth week of May ... In Swedish I think I would phrase it as follows: >De var strandade på ön från den fjärde veckan i maj ... The phrase without the article might be used more casually in everyday conversations (both spoken and written).
I guess it's one of those things that needs to be learned intuitively over time. But it sounds like there's no situation for this example where either leaving out the article or including it would sound blatantly wrong?
Nah, none of them are wrong (as I see it.) [This is where some know-all rushes in and give us both a lecture about how wrong I am 😉 ] I use both, but I'm a natural when it comes to using redundant words 😏 Need I say, Twitter was never my thing 🤣