The other day I got an email asking me to clarify which form of the third person plural personal pronoun (that would be the Swedish equivalent of “they” in English) was correct. The question, of course, was about “de” and “dom”.
Hmmm… it’s an interesting question. Both of those words are pronounced the same – as ”dom” and mean exactly the same. In fact, the explanation that you can see in many grammar books for foreigners is that we write “de” and pronounce it “dom”.
Hmmm… then what about those not so infrequent times when you can see “dom” actually written as “dom”? Though personally it rubs me the wrong way, you can find plenty of “dom” in less formal written Swedish. And that’s one thing I really don’t understand. After all it’s so much faster and more efficient to write “de” instead of “dom”. And I don’t know if it’s just me, but “de” just LOOKS more sophisticated, too.
So yes, we say “dom” and write it mostly as “de”, except for the times when we write it as “dom”. Easy!
But then there’s “dem” which also sounds like “dom”.
“Dem” is the object pronoun of “de”. “What’s that?”, I hear you ask. That’s when a personal pronoun acts as an object in a sentence. Like that:
- Jag ser dem. – I can see them.
So basically, you have two different words: “de” and “dem”, which are both pronounced as “dom”. And sometimes written as “dom” as well.
See? That wasn’t confusing at all, now, was it? 
12 Comments
In fact, i’d say that in an informal context you’ll read “dom” more ofen than “de”
de : they
dem : them
Both are pronounced “dom”
Can’t say it’s particularly confusing, but then I may just be showing off.
Hi, I love your blog, you really know how to make grammar fun!
I have a question that is unrelated to pronouns but maybe you can help me anyway:
My textbook says that to express obligation, you use “måste”, so that “Jag måste åka till Lund” means “I must drive to Lund”.
My question is: can you also say in Swedish: “Jag har att gå till Lund”, parrallel to English “have to”?
Thanks so much!
@Confused Swedish Learner: No, you can’t use “ha att” in this sense. Also, the verb “gå” can only mean “to walk”, and not “to travel”. “Åka”, “fara” or “resa” are possible alternatives, but one could just also say “Jag måste till Lund imorgon”.
OT, one question which has been discussed a lot is which pronoun to use in the phrase which is pronounced “jag såg dom som stod därborta” (I saw those who were standing over there). Is it “de som” or “dem som”? Here, official advice is now that one can choose whatever form one wants.
David:
While I’m sure it’s accepted as part of the written standard to use either, I would use “de” for internal consistency.
Jag såg han som stod därborta.
Jag såg honom som stod därborta.
The later sentence doesn’t sound grammatical to my ear.
Use ‘de’ if you would use ‘they’ in english.
Use ‘dem’ if you would use ‘them’ in english.
Stick with those when talking too, unless you want to say ‘dom’ all the time.
@BM: Well now, that’s interesting. I agree with you: “Jag såg han som stod därborta” is what sounds the most grammatical to my ear, but that’s because to me, using “han” in an object position in general (such as in “Jag såg han på stan igår”, I saw him downtown yesterday) sounds grammatical, which is not too unusual. If you look at, say, Svenska Akademiens Grammatik, they will treat “honom som stod” as the main form but declare that “han som stod” is used by many language users as well. You could try it with other pronouns (imagine that you’re speaking to a crowd):
Er som står här framme ser jag, men inte er som står därborta.
I could possibly accept “ni” in the second position but would be hard-pressed in the first.
I am totally confused maybe because I am studying SweEnglish. I have never thought that we could use “Han” as an objective pronoun. I thougth it was as clear as English:
I saw him – I sag honom
He saw me – Han sag mig and so on.
Now I am confused!
Majlis:
In the sentence, “han” isn’t the object, the entire phrase “han som stod därborta” is the object (which I believe makes “han” the subject complement, but that’s probably too complex to worry about).
In the google fight:
Det är honom – 8 250
Det är han – 227 000
Ultimately, if the advice from above is that both are acceptable, then both are acceptable. I would use whichever you hear most often. You probably will end up using that which you hear most often anyway, whether you like it or not!
de = they
dem = them
Both are pronounced ‘dom’ (don’t ask me why). You can pronounce them as ‘de’ and ‘dem’, but it sounds somewhat old-fashioned and pompous.
Since they are pronounced the same way, many swedes don’t know when to use which in writing. The most common rule is in fact to translate the sentence into english and if it translates to ‘them’ then it’s ‘dem’ otherwise ‘de’.
Another rule is to always write ‘dom’ which works in either case, but should be avoided in formal situations.
It’s him = Det är han (nominative)
It’s him they’re looking for = Det är honom de letar efter. (accusative)
@BM and Majlis: In standard Swedish, everything is as BM said. Continue to use “honom” as the object form, except for cases such as “Det är han” where Swedes would almost always use the subject form, irrespective of which pronoun we’re talking about. So, when answering the phone, most Swedes say “Ja, det är jag” where English-speakers say “Hi, it’s me”.
Now. Old Swedish followed the traditional Germanic four-case system, and for the third person masculine singular it looked like this:
Nominative: han
Genitive: hans
Accusative: han
Dative: honom
In standard Swedish, the dative forms have everywhere crowded out the accusative forms and established themselves as general object forms. But in quite a lot of dialects the accusative lived on as an enclitic, so people would say “Jag såg’an” or “Jag såg’en” (I saw ‘im). It seems as if this usage not only has survived, but in fact expanded, so that “han” is not just viewed as an accusative enclitic, but in general is used by many language users in the object position. For me, it is fully grammatical to say “Han har inte jag sett på tio år” (I haven’t seen him in ten years). But no one will consider the use of “honom” in the object position to be strange, overly formal or anything like that, so don’t unlearn it.
A final aside: for the third person singular feminine, the Old Swedish paradigm was: hon – hennes – hana – henne. You sometimes hear “hana” be used in the object form in the form of an enclitic “‘na”, such as in “Jag såg’na” instead of “Jag såg henne”. This might be somewhat less common among younger language users, especially in urban areas, but far from extinct.