Log inSign up

Vi går på en liten väg genom skogen för att komma till sjön.

Vi går på en liten väg genom skogen för att komma till sjön.
We walk on a small road through the forest to get to the lake.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Swedish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Swedish now

Questions & Answers about Vi går på en liten väg genom skogen för att komma till sjön.

Why is it går and not åker in this sentence?

In Swedish, gå means to go on foot / to walk.
Åka means to go / travel by some kind of vehicle (car, bus, train, bike, etc.).

So:

  • Vi går = We are walking.
  • Vi åker = We are going/travelling (by car/bus/etc.).

Because the sentence describes people moving along a small road (and the default assumption is on foot), går is the natural choice.

You could say Vi åker på en liten väg... if they are in a car or on bikes instead of walking.

What does på mean in går på en liten väg, and why isn’t it i?

Literally, på means on, and i means in, but Swedish doesn’t always match English prepositions.

With roads, streets, and similar surfaces, Swedish typically uses på:

  • på en väg = on/along a road
  • på gatan = in the street / on the street
  • på motorvägen = on the highway

So Vi går på en liten väg means We are walking on/along a small road.
Using i here (i en väg) would sound wrong; i is used more for enclosed spaces: i skogen (in the forest), i huset (in the house), i bilen (in the car), etc.

Could you say Vi går längs en liten väg instead of Vi går på en liten väg?

Yes, you can, but there is a small nuance:

  • på en liten väg: very normal, neutral way to say you’re using that road as the path you’re on.
  • längs en liten väg: emphasizes moving alongside the road’s length, following it.

In many contexts, they’re interchangeable from a learner’s perspective:

  • Vi går på en liten väg genom skogen...
  • Vi går längs en liten väg genom skogen...

Both are acceptable; på en väg is just more common and idiomatic.

Why is it en liten väg and not en väg liten?

In Swedish, as in English, descriptive adjectives normally come before the noun:

  • en liten väg = a small road
  • ett stort hus = a big house
  • en röd bil = a red car

En väg liten would sound like broken or poetic Swedish, not normal everyday grammar.

Also note the adjective forms:

  • en liten väg (common gender: en)
  • ett litet hus (neuter: ett)
  • små vägar / små hus (plural)

So liten has different forms depending on gender and number, but it still comes before the noun.

Why is it genom skogen and not genom en skog?

Skogen = the forest (definite)
en skog = a forest (indefinite)

Using skogen suggests a specific, known forest:

  • genom skogen = through the forest (the one we both know about)

If you said genom en skog, it would sound like through a forest (some random or unspecified forest), which is possible, but context-dependent.

Because the sentence feels like talking about a particular route (maybe near your house, or a familiar place), genom skogen (through the forest) is the most natural.

Could you use i skogen instead of genom skogen?

You can, but it changes the nuance slightly:

  • genom skogen = through the forest, focusing on movement from one side to the other, crossing it.
  • i skogen = in the forest, focusing on being inside the forest area, not necessarily going all the way through.

So:

  • Vi går på en liten väg genom skogen
    We’re walking on a small road that takes us through the forest (from one side to the other).

  • Vi går på en liten väg i skogen
    We’re walking on a small road in the forest (the road is located in the forest; maybe we stay inside it).

Both are grammatically fine; genom matches better with the idea of going from where we are to the lake on the other side.

What exactly does för att do here, and why not just att komma till sjön?

För att introduces a purpose clause: it means in order to / to (for the purpose of).

  • Vi går ... för att komma till sjön.
    = We walk ... in order to get to the lake.

Att by itself is the basic infinitive marker (like "to" before a verb in English):

  • att komma = to come
  • att äta = to eat

You can sometimes drop för in informal speech (... att komma till sjön) and people will still understand you, but:

  • för att is the standard, clear way to say for the purpose of.
  • att alone is more general and not always read as “in order to”.

So in careful language, use för att to express purpose.

Can I change the word order inside för att komma till sjön? For example, can I say för att till sjön komma?

No, that kind of word order is not natural in Swedish.

Inside an infinitive phrase after att, the normal order is:

att + VERB + (other elements)

So:

  • att komma till sjön ✅
  • att till sjön komma ❌ (sounds like old poetry or foreign-influenced grammar)

That verb-last structure is something you might know from German, but Swedish doesn’t normally do that. The correct, everyday form is exactly what you see in the sentence: för att komma till sjön.

Why is it till sjön and not till sjö?

Again, this is about definite vs indefinite:

  • sjö = a lake
  • sjön = the lake

Till sjön means to the lake (a specific one), which fits when both speaker and listener know which lake is meant.

If you said till en sjö (to a lake), that would emphasize that it’s just some lake, not a particular, known one. That’s possible, but it would change the meaning slightly.

Till sjö without article is wrong in standard Swedish; the noun needs to be either definite (sjön) or have an article (en sjö).

Why does sjön end in -n instead of using a separate word for “the”?

Swedish usually marks definiteness with a suffix on the noun instead of a separate word like English the:

  • sjö = lake
    sjön = the lake

  • väg = road
    vägen = the road

  • skog = forest
    skogen = the forest

So sjön literally is lake-the in form, but in English we translate it as the lake.

This is a very regular pattern: learn the base form, then add -en, -n, -et, or -t depending on the word’s gender and ending.

Can I move parts of the sentence around, like För att komma till sjön går vi på en liten väg genom skogen?

Yes, that word order is possible and correct. Swedish allows you to move one element to the front for emphasis, but then the finite verb must come second (the V2 rule).

Original:

  • Vi (subject) går (verb) på en liten väg genom skogen för att komma till sjön.

If you move the purpose clause to the front:

  • För att komma till sjön (first element) går (verb!) vi (subject) på en liten väg genom skogen.

Notice the inversion: går vi, not vi går. Both versions are grammatical; they just emphasize different parts:

  • Vi går ... för att komma till sjön. – normal, neutral.
  • För att komma till sjön går vi ... – emphasizes the purpose.
Does skogen always mean “the forest”, or can it also mean “the woods / countryside”?

Literally, skogen is the forest, but in practice it can overlap with English the woods:

  • Vi går i skogen.
    = We are in the forest / in the woods.

In Swedish everyday usage:

  • skogen can mean forested nature in general, not necessarily a deep, dark forest.
  • Going ut i skogen can be like going out into the woods or into nature.

So yes, context can make skogen feel more like “the woods” or “the countryside with lots of trees” rather than a single, big, specific forest in the English sense.