Breakdown of Skulle ni kunna förklara för min kund var stationen ligger?
min
my
ligga
to lie
ni
you
var
where
skulle
would
kunna
be able to
kunden
the customer
stationen
the station
förklara
to explain
för
to
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Swedish grammar and vocabulary.
Questions & Answers about Skulle ni kunna förklara för min kund var stationen ligger?
What politeness nuance does Skulle ni kunna add compared to Kan ni?
It softens the request. Roughly:
- Kan ni/du… = Can you… (neutral, more direct)
- Skulle ni/du kunna… = Would you be able to… (politer, more tentative)
- Skulle ni/du vilja… = Would you be willing to… (even more deferential)
- Vore det möjligt att… = Would it be possible to… (very formal/indirect)
Is skulle a past tense here?
Morphologically yes (past of ska), but here it’s used for politeness/conditionality, not past time.
Should I use du or ni when talking to one person?
Use du in modern Swedish. Using ni to a single person can sound old‑fashioned or, in some contexts, condescending. Ni is natural for addressing several people.
Could ni be plural here?
Yes. Without context ni is ambiguous. It can mean “you (all).” If you intend a polite singular, prefer du instead.
Why is there no att after kunna (why not Skulle ni kunna att förklara)?
Swedish drops att after modal verbs. Use the bare infinitive after kan/kunna, ska/skulle, vill/ville, måste:
- Skulle ni kunna förklara… (correct)
- Skulle ni kunna att förklara… (incorrect)
Why is it förklara för and not förklara till/åt?
With “explain to someone,” Swedish uses förklara för någon.
- förklara till is wrong here.
- förklara åt is generally unidiomatic in this sense. You can also say berätta för någon (tell someone).
Where can för min kund go in the sentence?
These are natural:
- Skulle ni kunna förklara för min kund var stationen ligger?
- Skulle ni kunna förklara var stationen ligger för min kund? Avoid separating förklara and för with lots of material; förklara för min kund … is a neat unit.
Why var stationen ligger and not var ligger stationen?
Because it’s an indirect question (embedded clause). In indirect questions Swedish uses clause word order:
- Question word + subject + verb: … var stationen ligger Direct question (main clause) uses inversion:
- Var ligger stationen?
When do I use var versus vart?
- var = where (location, static).
- vart = to where (direction, movement). Here it’s location, so var is correct:
- Var är stationen? Den ligger där borta.
- Vart går du? Jag går till stationen.
Why use ligger instead of är?
For places/buildings, Swedish commonly uses ligger (lies/is located). Stationen ligger… sounds more idiomatic than Stationen är… in location statements. A formal alternative is är belägen.
Why is it stationen (definite) and not en station?
We’re referring to a specific, identifiable station (from context), so Swedish uses the definite form stationen. En station would mean “a station (any one),” which doesn’t fit the likely context.
Should I add den before stationen (like den stationen)?
No. Use either the definite suffix or a determiner, not both—unless there’s an adjective:
- No adjective: stationen
- With adjective: den stora stationen (double definiteness)
Can I say Kunde ni förklara… instead of Skulle ni kunna…?
Yes. Kunde ni… is also a polite past, but Skulle ni kunna… generally sounds softer/more tentative and is very common in requests.
Could I use berätta/säga/visa instead of förklara?
- förklara = explain (clarify, possibly in detail). Takes för: förklara för min kund…
- berätta = tell. Takes för: berätta för min kund var…
- säga = say/tell. Takes till: säga till min kund var…
- visa = show. Direct object is fine: visa min kund var… (you can also say visa var… för min kund)
Why is it ligger (present) after a “past-looking” skulle?
Tense in the embedded clause reflects reality: the station’s location is true now, so present ligger is used. Swedish doesn’t require backshifting; use past låg only if referring to a past situation.
Do I need a question mark at the end even though there’s an embedded var?
Yes. The whole sentence is a direct request (a yes/no question), so it ends with a question mark. The embedded var… clause is not separately punctuated.
Is it okay to use ni to sound polite to a single customer?
It’s used in some service contexts, but it can feel old-fashioned or create distance. A safer modern choice is du with a polite phrasing: Skulle du kunna…, Kan du vara snäll och…, Ursäkta, skulle du kunna…
Why min and not mitt or mina in för min kund?
kund is an en‑word (common gender) in singular: en kund → min kund.
- mitt is for ett‑words.
- mina is for plurals: mina kunder.
Should I capitalize Ni?
Some styles used capital Ni for polite singular, but this is fading and inconsistent. Today, lowercase ni is standard for plural. For a single person, prefer du.
Could I use där instead of var in the embedded clause?
No. var is the interrogative “where” used in direct/indirect questions. där means “where/there” in relative or adverbial use (e.g., platsen där stationen ligger = “the place where the station is”).
Can I drop the preposition and say something like a dative: förklara min kund?
No. Modern Swedish doesn’t have a productive dative. You need the preposition: förklara för min kund.
Should there be a comma before var?
No. Swedish normally doesn’t use a comma before embedded att/om/var clauses unless there’s a special intonational break. Here, no comma is needed.