# Danish: -inde [Feminine termination of nouns]



## ServusMagnaeReginae

I have searched the site for the answer, but the question appears not to have been raised before, so now am putting the question to users:  What is the rule (if any) regarding the feminine termination of nouns in Danish?  For example we have _Englænderinde_ but it seems no _Eroberinde_ (unless I'm mistaken), the male form being employed for feminine nouns.  

Any help in ascertaining the rule would be appreciated.


----------



## hanne

You could make the word erobrerinde if you wanted to.

The general rule is that the ending -inde is very rarely used these days, you'll mostly find it in older texts. And I think they sometimes use it at award shows and the like, where they need to distinguish (bedste sanger/sangerinde).


----------



## bicontinental

ServusMagnaeReginae said:


> What is the rule (if any) regarding the feminine termination of nouns in Danish?  For example we have _Englænderinde_ but it seems no _Eroberinde_ (unless I'm mistaken), the male form being employed for feminine nouns.



Hi!
  You’re right that _erobrerinde_ doesn’t exist and never did according to “Den danske ordbog” and “Ordbog over det danske sprog”…[likely because a conqueror was almost by definition considered male and the female suffix –inde was only appended to the male nouns for which there was a female equivalent as in _lærer-lærerinde _(teacher), _maler-malerinde _(painter) etc… my interpretation ].


  I’m unaware of any specific grammar rules pertaining to this, but most frequently the female form was/is constructed by adding the suffix –inde  to the male noun, on a rare occasion with a change in the noun root as in _svoger-svigerinde_ (brother and sister-in-law). Another "female suffix" is –ske as in _syerske_ (seamstress), _sygeplejerske_ (nurse),_ bedragerske_ (traitor).


  In recent decades female forms of nouns ending in –mand have been constructed by replacing –mand with –kvinde such as _talsmand-talskvinde_ (spokesman).


  As Hanne mentioned above, these specific female forms are disappearing, falling out of usage. As such, _Englænderinde_ would sound quite dated to my ears.

Bic.


----------



## Sepia

Politcal organisations like unions, women's liberation ativists also did a lot to do away with the F endings in names of occupations - "lærer" is the correct term for male and female teachers. However, "sygeplejerske" (nurse - like in a hospital) is F, but can today be correct even when talking about a male nurse. (And he does not have to look like somebody out of M.A.S.H. for it to be appopriate).


----------



## hanne

bicontinental said:


> You’re right that _erobrerinde_ doesn’t exist and never did according to “Den danske ordbog” and “Ordbog over det danske sprog”…[likely because a conqueror was almost by definition considered male and the female suffix –inde was only appended to the male nouns for which there was a female equivalent as in _lærer-lærerinde _(teacher), _maler-malerinde _(painter) etc… my interpretation ].


I don't agree that the word erobrerinde doesn't exist. The word can be constructed following standard rules, and is easily understandable by anyone for the same reason. That a word isn't in the dictionary doesn't mean it doesn't exist (think of compound nouns for plenty of examples). This is probably a difference between Danish and English.


----------



## bicontinental

hanne said:


> I don't agree that the word erobrerinde doesn't exist. The word can be constructed following standard rules...



Hi Hanne,
I do realize that some words don’t make it into our dictionaries for various reasons, and that the exclusion from a dictionary doesn’t necessarily mean that a given word was never uttered by anyone. But you have to agree that it is rather difficult to _prove_ the existence of a word if you can’t find it anywhere. Likewise, it’s difficult to verify the correct form of a word, in case there might be more than one way of constructing it. Finally, the mere suggestion that you _can_ create a word is hardly proof of its existence. 

I have no personal experience with the word _erobrerinde_…I’ve never used it, heard it or seen it in writing, (which may not mean a lot in and of itself ) but as I mentioned above it is neither included in the contemporary DDS nor is it in the historical ODS. A Google search came up completely negative. Knowing that the Germans are quite fond of the female suffix –in (or at least they used to be), I checked my German-Danish dictionary (Gyldendal) which lists _erobrer_ as the only Danish translation for “Eroberin”. I don’t know where the OP searched, but apparently he was unable to find a female equivalent for _erobrer_. To me this suggests that we’re not talking about a commonly used word…if it even exists. But based on the above statement, you may have proof of its existence in which case I stand corrected. 

We can make up words and that’s of course one way that our languages grow and develop. And using the suffix –inde might be a good place to start in this case as it parallels the German word, “Eroberin”. But why not _erobrerske_ modeled on _bedragerske_, or _erobringskvinde_ in keeping with modern trends. These are words I’m sure people would also readily understand…or simply _kvindelig erobrer_ (which would be my preference BTW). Why do we say _syerske_ and not _syerinde_ for which the Germans use “Näherin”? 
You refer to “standard rules” for the construction of these words, and I would appreciate a reference to these, as I don’t know them, and I think that’s what the OP was asking for as well.

In sum, I wouldn’t use the word _erobrerinde_, as I find no basis for its use and no evidence of its existence in dictionaries available to me. I wouldn’t recommend that anyone create this word or make it part of his/her active vocabulary since no one else seems to be using it. 

Best,

Bic.


----------



## Sepia

bicontinental said:


> Hi Hanne,
> ...
> 
> You refer to “standard rules” for the construction of these words, and I would appreciate a reference to these, as I don’t know them, and I think that’s what the OP was asking for as well.
> 
> In sum, I wouldn’t use the word _erobrerinde_, as I find no basis for its use and no evidence of its existence in dictionaries available to me. I wouldn’t recommend that anyone create this word or make it part of his/her active vocabulary since no one else seems to be using it.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bic.



I couldn't give you any reference to the exact rules defining how to create words. But as a fairly intelligent humanoid I am capable of discovering certain  patterns in the language that we see again and again. What Hanne refers to IS such a pattern. There is nothing wrong with "erobrerinde". It is a construction that works exactly the same way as other words with the suffix "-inde". The fact that some words have "-ske" does not change anything. For some reason "-ske" is generally used in the words describing occupations or functions that used to be mainly female. Why this is so, I cannot tell. But that is probably the reason why I would not go for "erobrerske". I might also say, "It does not sound right", but there is usually a pattern programmed into the subcounscious that makes people mean that one thing sounds right and the other doesn't.

Not finding a word in a dictionary can never be "proof" that it is not a proper word. Lots of proper words are not in the dictionaries. 

And in my opinion, drawing conclusions concerning language by counting the hits in a search machine is just about as un-scientific as one can get. Yot can probably get hits on words that do not exist, just because somebody made a typing error and I could also give you words that I have heard Hundreds of times and you'd only get but a few hits. (Check this one for starters. "Krybsætter". If you are lucky you'll get one hit.)


----------



## bicontinental

Hi Sepia,

You seem to accept the fact that certain female nouns like _sygeplejerske_ are used also for males (+/- the modifier _mandlig_), so I don’t see why you’d be opposed to the idea that there may be a small group of male nouns for which a female form has not traditionally been in use even if it could and can be constructed. And I can’t fathom why anyone would encourage a non-native speaker to construct a word and use it when there’s no evidence that this word is indeed used by native speakers. But you’re obviously entitled to your opinions and I’ve stated mine above so there’s no point in repeating them here.

I don’t believe I ever said that I would draw conclusions by _counting_ Google _hits_, but since you brought it up I would like to add that my experience with Google has been completely different from yours: I think search engines can be very informative unless one does a poor job screening the results. By being a little selective and checking the sources making sure they are legit you can get useful information about word usage and context, conventional spelling of words, e.g. “krybbesætter”, as well as literary and dictionary references, just to mention a few. 

Best,
Bic.


----------



## Sepia

bicontinental said:


> Hi Sepia,
> 
> You seem to accept the fact that certain female nouns like _sygeplejerske_ are used also for males (+/- the modifier _mandlig_), so I don’t see why you’d be opposed to the idea that there may be a small group of male nouns for which a female form has not traditionally been in use even if it could and can be constructed. And I can’t fathom why anyone would encourage a non-native speaker to construct a word and use it when there’s no evidence that this word is indeed used by native speakers. But you’re obviously entitled to your opinions and I’ve stated mine above so there’s no point in repeating them here.
> 
> I don’t believe I ever said that I would draw conclusions by _counting_ Google _hits_, but since you brought it up I would like to add that my experience with Google has been completely different from yours: I think search engines can be very informative unless one does a poor job screening the results. By being a little selective and checking the sources making sure they are legit you can get useful information about word usage and context, conventional spelling of words, e.g. “krybbesætter”, as well as literary and dictionary references, just to mention a few.
> 
> Best,
> Bic.




"Why construct  ...?" I have a simple answer to that: That is the way language works and develops. 
However, you have to differentiate between the words that are constructed because that is the way words are normally constructed - the other constructions that were more or less introduced by force. "Sygeplejerske" used for a male nurse is such a word. As most nurses were female and their trade union settled for a word to describe their profession and which then would be a "no-no" for others to use, they favorised the majority and settled for the female version of the word. 

However nobody said - I didn't, Hanne neither - that anyone would be likely to use the word "erobrerinde" today because nobody really relate these suffixes with gender. Nevertheless, the word is correct because it is constructed exactly the way such words are and were constructed.
The fact that a word is not in a dictionary does not tell us if it is a proper word or not. Lots of words are not - anybody who has done some serious translating knows that. No matter which spelling of "krybbesætter" you use you will only get but an handful of hits. You will not find in in "Retskrivningsordbogen". Still it is a proper word, that I have heard hundreds of times in everyday speach and read in court rulings etc. I don't know why you want to indicate I don't know how to use the Internet for gathering info. I know that very well. But I also know how to gather information and do research for my translations withouth having the Internet at my disposal. And there is still a lot of information, that you will not find easily on the Internet - or maybe not find at all.
Sure you can get hints and info about the use of a word through clever usage of a search engine. That is not what I dispute. I dispute the conclusion that a word is not a proper word or does not exist because it is not found in a dictionary or on the Internet. I know a lot of pepole have a hard time in making their logic work with negative values, but this is one situation where it seems necessary. It is basically the same as saying, "nobody has ever proven the existence of particles smaller than atoms, thus it is a proven fact than nothing smaller than atoms exists". I think we all know that this is not true. Newertheless, that is what they taught (tried to teach) me in grade school. 

And what non-native speakers are concerned: I have confidence that lots of non-native speakers of grasping how words are constructed. Why shouldn't they be?


----------

