—

[Morgana]

—

[Xenops]

Still cracking on. The end of last year ground me down and it was necessary to pull back from a lot of things (including the internet). Fortunately in that space I was able to find my way back to Swedish.

Ok. Going to fade out into the background for a while again to keep my focus. Thanks for clicking.

Welcome Back!!! I enjoyed reading your posts from before.

I'm sorry last year was unkind to you. Hopefully things will look up? I'll pray for you.

[Systematiker]

Welcome back indeed!

[Morgana]

—

[Morgana]

—

[Morgana]

—

[Morgana]

—

[jeff_lindqvist]

From Tuesday's Radio Sweden på lätt svenska:

De vill att regeringen ska ge mer pengar till vård och till kvinnojourer, för att hjälpa personer som utsätts för sexuella brott.

My attempt at a translation: "They want the government to give more money to care and to women's services/refuges, in order to help people who have been exposed to sexual crimes." ?
/.../
And by extension, if Google's version is correct, then som can sort of be "dropped" from the translation into English?

Edit: Some stuff.
Edit 2: The more I stare at this sentence, the wronger I feel about my reading of it. Does the clause following för att need a subject? So maybe there's more to it I'm missing.

It's a standard passive form in the present tense - utsätts för (infinitive - att utsättas för, past tense - utsattes för, perfect - har utsatts för etc.). Passives may seem strange in the present tense, as if it's an ongoing process (in this context, the people have already been exposed to the offenses), but a more common example could be:
Engelska talas i många länder. English is spoken in many countries. It's not a "completed" action, but rather something happening in the now.

Som is required in your example.

för att - in order to; a verb is required (...hjälpa), that's it.

Hope this helps.

[Morgana]

—

[jeff_lindqvist]

Big help, thank you. I didn't realize it was a particle verb, so that also helps. It's moreso that I haven't run into a lot of 2nd 4th conjugation verbs in passive present tense, whereas I have more so with conjugation 1, where it's just infinitive+s. The 2nd 4th conjugation is not like that, so takes more attention to detail to notice (for me).

It seems, then, regarding som, that there's not always an English translation for it - ie. that the Swedish construction requires it but in English we can just skip over it and say "for people exposed..." and not “for people who are exposed...” (Except for my example, as you pointed out. I should have been clearer here - I am used to som being translated, I am less practiced at expressions where it is omitted in English. I have to get better at telling when it should and should not be translated into English.)

Thanks for clarification about för att. I was really starting to overthink things Thanks for all that!

Edit: BUT WAIT 2nd conjugation verbs don't change their vowels, but 4th conjugation verbs do, if I remember correctly. So this would be a 4th conjugation verb. It's the changing vowel + not using infinitive in passive present that messes me up. Ugh I don't want to be all incorrect about the verb categorizations in this log haha.
Edit 2: Striked through paragraph on som. Oh my, am I overthinking this. It is completely possible to translate it as “people who are exposed,” and for whatever reason Google Translate decided to leave out a couple words. I think I should ditch Google Translate because I’d probably have done better with this on my own, or at least not had so much contorted thinking going on.

Maybe you're overthinking? Utsätta (för) is a transitive verb (which needs an object), add an s- and it becomes passive. Same with any other verb that can take an object. Äta - ätas, läsa - läsas, måla - målas, skriva - skrivas, reparera - repareras, lägga - läggas and the list goes on. Now, utsätta does change vowels (or rather, the root verb sätta does), and it has an added preposition/particle - both of which may be confusing at this moment, but the main concept is the passive -s.