# Norwegian: I felt the earth move today!



## Grefsen

We had an earthquake (*j**ordskjelv*) in southern California today and I was wondering how I would write the following *på norsk:*

"I felt the earth move today!"

Here is my partial attempt:

*Jeg **følte jordet ?? i dag!
* 
 *Tusen takk!*


----------



## oskhen

Grefsen said:


> We had an earthquake (*j**ordskjelv*) in southern California today and I was wondering how I would write the following *på norsk:*
> 
> "I felt the earth move today!"
> 
> Here is my partial attempt:
> 
> *Jeg **følte jordet ?? i dag!*
> 
> *Tusen takk!*


 
*Føle* is correct, but I think *kjenne* would be better. *Jordet* (neuter) is definite form of *jorde**, *meaning* field *(you know, with grain or potatoes or whatever). I suppose you're thinking of *jord *(masculine word), meaning *earth*. In that case, it would be* jorden*. *To move* would, in this case, translate as *bevege (på) seg*, or *røre (på) seg *(both reflexive - literally it's "move itself/move oneself"). In this context, I think I'd prefer ther first alternative, without being able to explain why. (The two have some different uses, I suppose, but that should be the subject of another thread.) So then we have *Jeg kjente jorden bevege seg i dag*. However, since the word *jorden *in this case very easily could give associations to the planet, I think you should use* bakken*, or *grunnen *- both meaning* ground *(for that's what it's about, isnt it?) - instead. So then we have:

*Jeg kjente bakken/grunnen bevege seg i dag.*


----------



## simdal

I strongly support Oskhens very detailed explanation..


----------



## Grefsen

oskhen said:


> *Føle* is correct, but I think *kjenne* would be better.


I was wondering why it is better to use *kjenne *instead of *føle* in my previous example?

Here is what I would like to write *på* norsk:

We felt the earth move here in Southern California on the afternoon of Easter Sunday. 

Mitt forsøk:  

Vi kjente grunnen bevege seg  her i det sørlige California på ettermiddagen første påskedag.


----------



## vestfoldlilja

Grefsen said:


> I was wondering why it is better to use *kjenne *instead of *føle* in my previous example?
> 
> Vi kjente grunnen bevege seg  her i det sørlige California på ettermiddagen første påskedag.




 _Føle _is perhaps more used when describing emotional feelings and things more easily perceived than physically felt or touched. 

Jeg følte på meg at jeg kom til å bli syk – I sensed that I was going to be (become) sick.

Jeg kjente på meg at jeg kom til å bli syk – I felt that I was going to be (become) sick.

Han følte seg bra nok til å fortsette – He felt good enough to continue. (Emotional state)

Han kjente seg bra nok til å fortsette – He felt good enough to continue. (Psychical state)

In your sentence kjente is more correct because you physically felt the shake. 

You're sentence works well


----------



## Grefsen

vestfoldlilja said:


> _Føle _is perhaps more used when describing emotional feelings and things more easily perceived than physically felt or touched.
> 
> You're sentence works well.


"Tusen takk" for your very thorough explanation and for the positive feedback.


----------



## Grefsen

Vi kjente grunnen bevege seg  her i det sørlige  California igjen i dag.  Det var vår tredje kraftig jordskjelv i tre måneder.  

We felt  the earth move here in Southern California again today.  It was  our third powerful earthquake in three months.


----------



## vestfoldlilja

You did very well, but I would suggest changing part of the first sentence so that _i dag_ and _igjen_ appear earlier in the sentence. It’s a simple change but the sentence works better that way and has an easier flow to it. 

The second sentence just need three small changes. Two added letters since _vår_ and _kraftig_ needs to be in plural; _vårt_ and _kraftige_. And also the_ i _needs to be changed to _på._

I dag kjente vi igjen grunnen bevege seg her i det sørlige California. Det var vårt tredje kraftige jordskjelv på tre måneder.


----------



## Dan2

vestfoldlilja said:


> The second sentence just need three small changes. Two added letters since _vår_ and _kraftig_ needs to be in plural; _vårt_ and _kraftige_. ...
> Det var vårt tredje kraftige jordskjelv på tre måneder.


Hi!

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you need "vårt" because "jordskjelv" is _neuter_? ("vår katt" but "vårt hus").

And "kraftige" not because "jordskjelv" is plural but because the phrase is "definite" ("et stort hus" but "vårt storE hus").  ("definite" takes plural -e even for singular.)

Of course, you native speakers don't have to think about these things, but they're important for us learners!
As always, I'm saying only what I _think_ I know; looking forward to hearing the _real_ story.  Thanks.


----------



## oskhen

Dan2 said:


> Hi!
> 
> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you need "vårt" because "jordskjelv" is _neuter_? ("vår katt" but "vårt hus").
> 
> And "kraftige" not because "jordskjelv" is plural but because the phrase is "definite" ("et stort hus" but "vårt storE hus"). ("definite" takes plural -e even for singular.)
> 
> Of course, you native speakers don't have to think about these things, but they're important for us learners!
> As always, I'm saying only what I _think_ I know; looking forward to hearing the _real_ story. Thanks.


 
I'm quite sure you're absolutely correct.


----------



## vestfoldlilja

Dan2 said:


> Hi!
> 
> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that you need "vårt" because "jordskjelv" is _neuter_? ("vår katt" but "vårt hus").
> 
> And "kraftige" not because "jordskjelv" is plural but because the phrase is "definite" ("et stort hus" but "vårt storE hus").  ("definite" takes plural -e even for singular.)
> 
> Of course, you native speakers don't have to think about these things, but they're important for us learners!
> As always, I'm saying only what I _think_ I know; looking forward to hearing the _real_ story.  Thanks.



       I'm quite sure you're correct as well, sorry for my mistake. Thank you for pointing it out. 

It is surprisingly, and unfortunately, easy to overlook these things when one rarely thinks about the grammar and the inner workings of a sentence when one speaks, and when the days of ones schooldays are long gone, but I should have taken more time to look over my post before posting it.


----------



## Grefsen

Tusen takk hjelpen vestfoldlilja, Dan2, og oskhen! 


vestfoldlilja said:


> It is surprisingly, and unfortunately, easy to overlook these things when one rarely thinks about the grammar and the inner workings of a sentence when one speaks, and when *one's school days* are long gone, but I should have taken more time to look over my post before posting it.


Just what you need right now, a couple of corrections in English too.  

I can really relate to what you have written and since joining this forum I must admit that I have cringed on more than one occasion over some of the mistakes I have made in English, the one language I am supposedly fluent in.


----------



## vestfoldlilja

Grefsen said:


> Tusen takk hjelpen vestfoldlilja, Dan2, og oskhen!  Just what you need right now, a couple of corrections in English too.
> 
> I can really relate to what you have written and since joining this forum I must admit that I have cringed on more than one occasion over some of the mistakes I have made in English, the one language I am supposedly fluent in.




   Thank you for correcting me and a couple of corrections more won't do me any harm. 

  I guess learning is like an eternal circle and I suppose we should be glad we are still able to learn and pick up new; and old things again, as we grow older.


----------

