Breakdown of Vem är det som har fräckheten att anklaga mig?
vara
to be
vem
who
ha
to have
att
to
mig
me
som
who / which / that (relative pronoun)
det
there (dummy subject)
anklaga
to accuse
fräckheten
the audacity
Questions & Answers about Vem är det som har fräckheten att anklaga mig?
The current lesson is about using skulle for indignation. How would I apply that to this sentence?
You can replace har with skulle ha to get Vem är det som skulle ha fräckheten att anklaga mig? (Who would have the audacity to accuse me?). This makes the rhetorical question even stronger, adding a layer of disbelief that anyone could possibly dare to do it.
Why use Vem är det som har... instead of just Vem har...?
Saying Vem är det som... (Who is it that...) is a common way to add emphasis in Swedish, known as a cleft sentence. While Vem har fräckheten... is perfectly correct, the longer version sounds more dramatic and zeroes in on the specific identity of the accuser.
Is fräckheten always translated as audacity or nerve?
In this context, yes. It translates perfectly to audacity, nerve, or cheek. However, the root adjective fräck can mean cheeky or insolent, but in modern slang it can also mean cool or awesome (like a cool car). In the noun form fräckhet, it almost always carries the negative meaning of insolence.
Could I use the indefinite form en fräckhet or just fräckhet instead of fräckheten?
You need the definite form fräckheten here. Just like in English where you say 'the audacity' rather than just 'audacity', Swedish uses the definite form when it is immediately followed by an infinitive phrase (att anklaga mig) that specifies exactly what the audacity is.
Learn Vem är det som har fräckheten att anklaga mig and more in Swedish
All course content and exercises are completely free — no paywalls, no trial periods, no signup needed.
- ✓ Practice with interactive exercises
- ✓ Track your progress with spaced repetition
- ✓Learn at your own pace — completely free