# Norwegian: Sammensatte substantiv



## hungpham

<< Topic: Sammensatte substantiv >>

As far as I know, there are 3 ways to create a new noun from 2 other nouns:

Merge directly. 
With -s- between them. 
With -e- between them. 

But I don't know when using which one. Can anyone help please?

Thanks.


----------



## sjiraff

There is no particular pattern as far as I know, you just have to remember it.

Dørkarm - door frame
Vinduskarm - window frame

Although I can only really say that for Norwegian, not sure of the other Scandinavian languages!


----------



## Sepia

If there is a pattern it is more or less a phonetic one and not one based on the types of words or the meaning of the words.

But even if you don't get it right, that is not going to blow your cover when you try to pass as a Dane.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

There IS a pattern, but no official rules. The agglutinating -e- is a vestige from Old Norse, where it served as a possessive form. The words that take the -e- in a compound are usually one syllable words of Norse origin, and for some reason often linked to animals and people: jul, fisk, hund, katt, hjort, barn, mann, rev, bjørn etc.

The -s- is a different story altogether. It is applied if the first element is originally a verb, or a compound. The latter might apply to words with noun-making suffixes as well. It might also be a reference to an infix possessive - meaning that _stedsnavn_ is actually "et steds navn"


----------



## Ben Jamin

NorwegianNYC said:


> There IS a pattern, but no official rules. The agglutinating -e- is a vestige from Old Norse, where it served as a possessive form. The words that take the -e- in a compound are usually one syllable words of Norse origin, and for some reason often linked to animals and people: jul, fisk, hund, katt, hjort, barn, mann, rev, bjørn etc.
> 
> The -s- is a different story altogether. It is applied if the first element is originally a verb, or a compound. The latter might apply to words with noun-making suffixes as well. It might also be a reference to an infix possessive - meaning that _stedsnavn_ is actually "et steds navn"


What about the rule that prescribes inserting an "s" between the second and third element in the compound?
This is not an absolute rule, but it is applied often.


----------



## sjiraff

NorwegianNYC said:


> There IS a pattern, but no official rules. The agglutinating -e- is a vestige from Old Norse, where it served as a possessive form. The words that take the -e- in a compound are usually one syllable words of Norse origin, and for some reason often linked to animals and people: jul, fisk, hund, katt, hjort, barn, mann, rev, bjørn etc.


Ah, like "bjørnetjeneste"?



NorwegianNYC said:


> The -s- is a different story altogether. It is applied if the first element is originally a verb, or a compound. The latter might apply to words with noun-making suffixes as well. It might also be a reference to an infix possessive - meaning that _stedsnavn_ is actually "et steds navn"



What about words like "et svømmebasseng", where svømme is a verb but th ere is no -s- added?


----------



## Sepia

sjiraff said:


> Ah, like "bjørnetjeneste"?
> 
> 
> 
> What about words like "et svømmebasseng", where svømme is a verb but th ere is no -s- added?




I'd say, if there really is a rule in Norwegian, there must have been one in Danish too. (The question is, how far back?)


In Danish it would be

svømmebassin

stednavn

ildsted

tændstikæske 

gymnastiksalen

kompagnichefen

koncernledelsen


but also 

forsvarskommandoen

efterretningstjenesten

rigspolitiet

parlamentssalen

arbejdsformidlingen

handelshøjskolen


I have a feeling there may exist some kind of almost functionable pattern because usually I know if it sounds right or not. A lot of people, though, seem to have different feeling of what sounds right. 

One I have heard a lot in Copenhagen is "tændstiksæske". "Fodboldskamp" is not unusual either. But it is  not standard Danish.


But even if we cannot rationally determine a rule we often unconsciously have found. Isn't that the way language usually works?


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Ben Jamin said:


> What about the rule that prescribes inserting an "s" between the second and third element in the compound?
> This is not an absolute rule, but it is applied often.


 Yes, that will count as a "compound". However, this is often determined by usage, not a rule _per se_


----------



## NorwegianNYC

sjiraff said:


> What about words like "et svømmebasseng", where svømme is a verb but th ere is no -s- added?


 It is not an absolute rule! (or indeed a "rule" at all). Many words are spelled without, and many are optional. My guess, when it comes to "svømmebasseng" is that the -e- is interpreted as the agglutinating element.


----------



## bicontinental

sjiraff said:


> What about words like "et svømmebasseng", where svømme is a verb but th ere is no -s- added?



*Svømme*basseng seems to be an example of a pattern (I didn’t say “a rule” ) in which the first part of a compound noun is a verb (the verb root + -e = the bare infinitive) to which the second part is appended directly. Many verbs of movement and action verbs use this formula, e.g. *kjøre*bane, kjøreskole, kjøreplan *svømme*belte, svømmefugl, *løpe*bane, løpeild, *danse*lokale*, *dansesal, *skøyte*bane, skøyteløp,* lese*sal, lesebok etc. etc.

Bic.


----------



## Ogago

sjiraff said:


> There is no particular pattern as far as I know, you just have to remember it.
> 
> Dørkarm - door frame
> Vinduskarm - window frame
> 
> Although I can only really say that for Norwegian, not sure of the other Scandinavian languages!



I Swedish we often use -s-, sometimes -e-, (cannot give an example here), but also -u- (like in 'gatuteater'), and -o- (like in 'kyrkoruin').


----------

