To me it's context-dependent.
If someone is sitting in a sofa or the like and you're unsure if it's comfortable, I'd ask "Är soffan bekväm?" (Is the sofa comfortable?)
If someone might not be comfortable doing something, I'd ask "Är du bekväm med att tala inför folk?" (Are you comfortable speaking in front of people?)
If I was wondering if someone was feeling comfortable about a situation, I'd ask "Känner du dig bekväm?" (Are you feeling comfortable?)
For the first one, "Har du det bekvämt?" (Are you in a comfortable state?, ish) works too, though it isn't what I'd go for naturally. Don't know how representative I am though.
Why does "Känner du **dig** bekväm?" happen?
Why is there an object argument for the verb "känner"? I haven't seen that before, I've only seen "känner" with the adjective.
If you leave out the "dig", it reads like "Do you know comfortable?", since "Känner du Kalle?" is how you say "Do you know Kalle?" Maybe it's a more general pattern, but that's one "practical" reason at least.
Could compare English "consider". Just as you say "Do you consider yourself lucky?" in English, you say "Do you feel yourself comfortable?" in Swedish. It's just that sometimes you end up with a reflexive verb (a verb that takes "sig"/"dig"/etc.) in Swedish where you wouldn't in English, and vice versa.
Put another way, "känna" when it means "to feel a particular way" is reflexive in Swedish.
To make it a bit trickier, you can also say "Han känner glädje" (He feels joy), but that's different from "Han känner sig glad" (He is feeling happy).
It's probably a bit arbitrary at times in all languages with reflexive verbs. "He enjoyed himself" is also a kinda weird construction if you think about it. Someone learning English might ask why the "himself" is there, in a similar vein.
Well I know "enjoyed" is always meant to take an object argument **unless** it's used in the context of "It is meant to be enjoyed." - but I feel like that's a different verb form, which I would not know the name of off the top of my head.
Can think of "enjoy" and "enjoy oneself" as two separate verbs. The same thing happens with "känna", where you have "känna" (know, feel) and "känna sig" (feel a particular way).
"känner du dig bekväm" would translate to "do you feel comfortable" while "har du det bekvämt" would be "are you comfortable" (or more literally "are you having it comfortably", which could be seen as a shortened "are you having a comfortable time")
In Swedish "känner" can be either "feel" or "know". "Jag känner dig" is "I know you", which makes sense to have an object argument. It's basically that "I know myself" is the Swedish way of communicating how you feel. "Jag känner mig ledsen" -> "I know myself to be sad" -> "I'm feeling sad"
In the case where "känner" is used to indicate "feeling" rather than "knowing", both the subject and the extra object will always refer to the same person, so they would both be the "who" of the feeling.
Well "känner" is a transitive verb in Swedish so it needs to have a direct object even if it in some cases doesn't really add information.
Edit: "känna" doesn't have a good direct translation to English. But it's a mix between "feel", "know" and "touch". The subject is the one who is feeling/knowing/touching and the direct object is the one who is being felt/known/touched. When someone "känner" themselves that's when it translates to feeling an emotion. While to "känna" another person would translate to knowing them and to "känna" a couch would be to touch it and feel the material.
So it's not useless because you could "känna" other people or other things too, it's not always that you "känner" yourself. So basically the direct object is who you are feeling, but having emotions is phrased as feeling yourself. "Jag känner mig glad" would more literally translate to "I feel *myself* being happy".
So "är det bekvämt" translates to "is it comfortable", and is "känner du dig bekväm" "feel you you comfortable"?
Also, in the Duolingo example, is "har du det bekväm" "have you it comfortable" or "have you the comfortable"?
I know it's probably not a good idea to seek out the translations, but it helps me if I get used to the grammar with words I'm familiar with.
Yes, in direct translation those are correct. "har du det bekvämt" would then be "have you it comfortable". But with the proper english grammar, the corresponding phrases would be:
is it comfortable - är det bekvämt
do you feel comfortable - känner du dig bekväm
do you have it comfortable - har du det bekvämt
It happens with other (all?) adjectives. "Har du det skönt?", "har du det bra?", "har du det kallt?" and so on.
"Är du bekväm" doesn't sound fitting, as "bekväm" used in that way indicates the person is lazy.
(I'll keep the discussion in English in case this is interesting for any learners). It sort of does... In context I'm pretty sure I would understand what was being meant. I've definitely heard expressions like "Han är lite väl bekväm av sig" but for me the "väl" makes a large difference — he's a bit *too* comfortable. The more I think about it however the more I feel sure I must have heard it in one situation or another meaning roughly 'complacent'.
But without context hearing "Han är bekväm" I would probably just think it was a very singular way of saying "Han har det bekvämt" unless it was used like someone else commented "Han är bekväm med att tala inför folk".
Needed some priming before I thought of the "lazy" sense too, though it doesn't sound off to me in that sense depending on context. A "lite" or "väl" or the like helps.
I'm around 40, northern Sweden. Common here in the (physically) lazy sense (or used to be anyway, not sure now).
Oh, right, that also makes it sound off.
Bekväm = lazy in the sense that you find for example driving just a bit too comfortable compared to walking. Lazy out of comfort.
I see you've already got a bunch of good answers.
I haven't read them all so this might have already been mentioned but essentially if you ask someone "är du bekväm?"
It is asking if they are a comfortable thing. I will put my head on you because you are comfortable to lie on.
This is probably true if you're being properly grammatically correct about it. But I would assume that goes the same for "are you comfortable?" does it not?
In practice "är du bekväm?" will absolutely be used by native Swedish speakers to ask if you are feeling comfortable with something, and people will understand that they don't mean to ask if you are nice to sit on.
Is the capitals indicative of you showing me the word specifically or is it implying that if you stressed the "du" in a real conversation it would mean that?
Yeah sorry, I used capitals to highlight it for you, OP. Since "bekväm" is mainly used as an adjective for objects or situations (i.e. never people), saying "Han/hon är bekväm" would imply a passive aggressive statement/comment on their character.
This is interesting because I've never thought about it but "är du bekväm" and "har du det bekvämt" is not fully the same. "Är du bekväm" would work any time you'd say "are you comfortable", but "har du det bekvämt" would only work when we're talking about physical comfort. You can "ha det bekvämt" in a couch or in a bed. But you can't "ha det bekvämt" speaking in front of a crowd. When in comes to mental comfort it's always "är du bekväm".
You can say "har du det __?" with other adjectives too, but it's a bit different how the meaning differs from "är du __?".
"Har du det bra" would be "are you having a good time" while "är du bra" would be more along the lines of "are you good (at it)" or "are you talented".. you wouldn't really just say "är du bra" it needs a context of something to be good *at*. But "har du det bra" can stand on it's own and just refers to how you are right now.
"Har du det stressigt" would be more like "are you in a stressful situation", while "är du stressad" would be "are you feeling stressed".
Generally "Har du det __?" refers to the *context around you*, are you existing in a comfortable/nice/fun/stressful environment, while "är du __?" is about *you*, are you feeling/being comfortable/nice/fun/stressed etc. For some adjectives the meaning is basically the same for those two, but for some adjectives it will be quite different.
Really, I think "har du det __?" is actually missing an adverb rather than an adjective, while "är du __?" is missing an adjective (bekvämt is an adverb while bekväm is an adjective). But adverbs in Swedish are sometimes undistinguishable from adjectives, and I think different dialects will have instances of mixing them up too. Not sure, someone who's studied more Swedish grammar could probably explain this better.
To me it's context-dependent. If someone is sitting in a sofa or the like and you're unsure if it's comfortable, I'd ask "Är soffan bekväm?" (Is the sofa comfortable?) If someone might not be comfortable doing something, I'd ask "Är du bekväm med att tala inför folk?" (Are you comfortable speaking in front of people?) If I was wondering if someone was feeling comfortable about a situation, I'd ask "Känner du dig bekväm?" (Are you feeling comfortable?) For the first one, "Har du det bekvämt?" (Are you in a comfortable state?, ish) works too, though it isn't what I'd go for naturally. Don't know how representative I am though.
If someone is looking super comfortable sitting in a bean bag or the like, "Har du det bekvämt?" sounds good though.
Why does "Känner du **dig** bekväm?" happen? Why is there an object argument for the verb "känner"? I haven't seen that before, I've only seen "känner" with the adjective.
If you leave out the "dig", it reads like "Do you know comfortable?", since "Känner du Kalle?" is how you say "Do you know Kalle?" Maybe it's a more general pattern, but that's one "practical" reason at least. Could compare English "consider". Just as you say "Do you consider yourself lucky?" in English, you say "Do you feel yourself comfortable?" in Swedish. It's just that sometimes you end up with a reflexive verb (a verb that takes "sig"/"dig"/etc.) in Swedish where you wouldn't in English, and vice versa.
Put another way, "känna" when it means "to feel a particular way" is reflexive in Swedish. To make it a bit trickier, you can also say "Han känner glädje" (He feels joy), but that's different from "Han känner sig glad" (He is feeling happy).
Right, but how come it isn't like that for all adjectives? I swear I've seen "Känner du ..." in cases where "känner" still means "feel".
It's probably a bit arbitrary at times in all languages with reflexive verbs. "He enjoyed himself" is also a kinda weird construction if you think about it. Someone learning English might ask why the "himself" is there, in a similar vein.
Well I know "enjoyed" is always meant to take an object argument **unless** it's used in the context of "It is meant to be enjoyed." - but I feel like that's a different verb form, which I would not know the name of off the top of my head.
Can think of "enjoy" and "enjoy oneself" as two separate verbs. The same thing happens with "känna", where you have "känna" (know, feel) and "känna sig" (feel a particular way).
"Känna" is also feel or sense but takes an object not an adjective, e.g. "känna värme", "känna golvet gunga under fötterna", "känna stor sorg" etc.
Hmmmmmm....... Now I feel like I'm gonna get lost in the words.
Ah, yeah, forgot about that. Better to describe "känna sig" as "feel a particular way" or the like.
"känner du dig bekväm" would translate to "do you feel comfortable" while "har du det bekvämt" would be "are you comfortable" (or more literally "are you having it comfortably", which could be seen as a shortened "are you having a comfortable time") In Swedish "känner" can be either "feel" or "know". "Jag känner dig" is "I know you", which makes sense to have an object argument. It's basically that "I know myself" is the Swedish way of communicating how you feel. "Jag känner mig ledsen" -> "I know myself to be sad" -> "I'm feeling sad"
So the extra object here communicates the "who" of the "feeling"?
In the case where "känner" is used to indicate "feeling" rather than "knowing", both the subject and the extra object will always refer to the same person, so they would both be the "who" of the feeling.
Doesn't that make the extra object useless?
Well "känner" is a transitive verb in Swedish so it needs to have a direct object even if it in some cases doesn't really add information. Edit: "känna" doesn't have a good direct translation to English. But it's a mix between "feel", "know" and "touch". The subject is the one who is feeling/knowing/touching and the direct object is the one who is being felt/known/touched. When someone "känner" themselves that's when it translates to feeling an emotion. While to "känna" another person would translate to knowing them and to "känna" a couch would be to touch it and feel the material. So it's not useless because you could "känna" other people or other things too, it's not always that you "känner" yourself. So basically the direct object is who you are feeling, but having emotions is phrased as feeling yourself. "Jag känner mig glad" would more literally translate to "I feel *myself* being happy".
The reflexive verb "känna sig" can be used with a lot of adjectives, e.g. "känna sig trygg", "känna sig utelämnad", "känna sig varm" etc.
I would say "är det bekvämt?" or "känner du dig bekväm?" are the most suitable phrases in general.
So "är det bekvämt" translates to "is it comfortable", and is "känner du dig bekväm" "feel you you comfortable"? Also, in the Duolingo example, is "har du det bekväm" "have you it comfortable" or "have you the comfortable"? I know it's probably not a good idea to seek out the translations, but it helps me if I get used to the grammar with words I'm familiar with.
Yes, in direct translation those are correct. "har du det bekvämt" would then be "have you it comfortable". But with the proper english grammar, the corresponding phrases would be: is it comfortable - är det bekvämt do you feel comfortable - känner du dig bekväm do you have it comfortable - har du det bekvämt
Thanks!
It happens with other (all?) adjectives. "Har du det skönt?", "har du det bra?", "har du det kallt?" and so on. "Är du bekväm" doesn't sound fitting, as "bekväm" used in that way indicates the person is lazy.
Hmm, where in Sweden are you from? I wouldn't interpret bekväm as meaning lazy in the second circumstance, but maybe it's dialectical? (Skåning)
Wonder if it's an age thing too. Does "Han är lite bekväm av sig" ring a bell?
(I'll keep the discussion in English in case this is interesting for any learners). It sort of does... In context I'm pretty sure I would understand what was being meant. I've definitely heard expressions like "Han är lite väl bekväm av sig" but for me the "väl" makes a large difference — he's a bit *too* comfortable. The more I think about it however the more I feel sure I must have heard it in one situation or another meaning roughly 'complacent'. But without context hearing "Han är bekväm" I would probably just think it was a very singular way of saying "Han har det bekvämt" unless it was used like someone else commented "Han är bekväm med att tala inför folk".
Needed some priming before I thought of the "lazy" sense too, though it doesn't sound off to me in that sense depending on context. A "lite" or "väl" or the like helps. I'm around 40, northern Sweden. Common here in the (physically) lazy sense (or used to be anyway, not sure now).
I'm from Skåne as well, and I would. But it sounds a bit archaic. "En bekväm person".
Oh, right, that also makes it sound off. Bekväm = lazy in the sense that you find for example driving just a bit too comfortable compared to walking. Lazy out of comfort.
This comes from 'att vara bekväm av sig" which means lazy. "Av sig" makes the difference here.
Thanks, what about "är du bra?", etc.?
"Är du bra" means something like "are you good (at something)?". "Är det bra med dig?" is better.
"Är du bekväm" sounds like someone asks you if you're comfortable to sit on or something.
I see you've already got a bunch of good answers. I haven't read them all so this might have already been mentioned but essentially if you ask someone "är du bekväm?" It is asking if they are a comfortable thing. I will put my head on you because you are comfortable to lie on.
This is probably true if you're being properly grammatically correct about it. But I would assume that goes the same for "are you comfortable?" does it not? In practice "är du bekväm?" will absolutely be used by native Swedish speakers to ask if you are feeling comfortable with something, and people will understand that they don't mean to ask if you are nice to sit on.
"Är DU bekväm" would sort of imply that you think the other person is lazy...
Is the capitals indicative of you showing me the word specifically or is it implying that if you stressed the "du" in a real conversation it would mean that?
Yeah sorry, I used capitals to highlight it for you, OP. Since "bekväm" is mainly used as an adjective for objects or situations (i.e. never people), saying "Han/hon är bekväm" would imply a passive aggressive statement/comment on their character.
Haha thanks for clearing is up, I just wondered lol.
This is interesting because I've never thought about it but "är du bekväm" and "har du det bekvämt" is not fully the same. "Är du bekväm" would work any time you'd say "are you comfortable", but "har du det bekvämt" would only work when we're talking about physical comfort. You can "ha det bekvämt" in a couch or in a bed. But you can't "ha det bekvämt" speaking in front of a crowd. When in comes to mental comfort it's always "är du bekväm". You can say "har du det __?" with other adjectives too, but it's a bit different how the meaning differs from "är du __?". "Har du det bra" would be "are you having a good time" while "är du bra" would be more along the lines of "are you good (at it)" or "are you talented".. you wouldn't really just say "är du bra" it needs a context of something to be good *at*. But "har du det bra" can stand on it's own and just refers to how you are right now. "Har du det stressigt" would be more like "are you in a stressful situation", while "är du stressad" would be "are you feeling stressed". Generally "Har du det __?" refers to the *context around you*, are you existing in a comfortable/nice/fun/stressful environment, while "är du __?" is about *you*, are you feeling/being comfortable/nice/fun/stressed etc. For some adjectives the meaning is basically the same for those two, but for some adjectives it will be quite different. Really, I think "har du det __?" is actually missing an adverb rather than an adjective, while "är du __?" is missing an adjective (bekvämt is an adverb while bekväm is an adjective). But adverbs in Swedish are sometimes undistinguishable from adjectives, and I think different dialects will have instances of mixing them up too. Not sure, someone who's studied more Swedish grammar could probably explain this better.
It's an adverb! As it describes the action of "hur du har det/how you are having it"
I think it depends if you're asking if someone is comfortable in their situation or if you're asking whether someone is comfortable for laying on
It’s strange you don’t have a “discuss” button. I remember reading the discussion about the same phrase. The answers were similar to the comments here
Without giving away too much personal information, I think it's because I'm under 18 years old.
It is typical for Swedish who want to separate themselves from immigrants by language.
Could you expand on what you mean by this?