# Norwegian: Gender changing for clarity



## sjiraff

Hi everyone,

I feel like I might be starting to beat a dead horse by making another thread about genders, but I think this might even be useful to others learning Norwegian to know this about genders (if i've understood correct).

I read the following quote which is the first law of thermodynamics (apparently):
_
    Strømmen av varme er en form for energi-overføring. Med andre ord kan en mengde varme som strømmer fra et varmt legeme til* en kald en* kan bli uttrykt som en mengde   av energi som overføres fra det varme legeme til *den kalde*._


I bolded the parts I'm referring to, now I always would have thought it should have been "et kaldt et" and "det kalde" respectively, but when I asked my Norwegian friend he said it's clearer with the other gender, since if it said "det kalde" it would seem more vague, like you aren't saying "the cold one" but rather just "the cold" (A bit like how you say, det fjerne, det ukjente etc)

So I'm wondering, is it the right thing to do to avoid confusion? I'm not sure what the proper term for things like "det kalde/det varme/det fjerne" are, but I have always wondered myself if it could cause confusion when you don't mean it in the "general" way, but more in the sense "the cold ONE".

Although, I still would have expected "et kaldt et" here.

Thanks for any clarity on the issue, especially since I don't think this is mentioned in any materials one can easily find for foreigners, and I wouldn't know what to be looking for in Norwegian to find a rule.


----------



## Ben Jamin

sjiraff said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I feel like I might be starting to beat a dead horse by making another thread about genders, but I think this might even be useful to others learning Norwegian to know this about genders (if i've understood correct).
> 
> I read the following quote which is the first law of thermodynamics (apparently):
> _
> Strømmen av varme er en form for energi-overføring. Med andre ord kan en mengde varme som strømmer fra et varmt legeme til* en kald en* kan bli uttrykt som en mengde   av energi som overføres fra det varme legeme til *den kalde*._
> 
> 
> I bolded the parts I'm referring to, now I always would have thought it should have been "et kaldt et" and "det kalde" respectively, but when I asked my Norwegian friend he said it's clearer with the other gender, since if it said "det kalde" it would seem more vague, like you aren't saying "the cold one" but rather just "the cold" (A bit like how you say, det fjerne, det ukjente etc)
> 
> So I'm wondering, is it the right thing to do to avoid confusion? I'm not sure what the proper term for things like "det kalde/det varme/det fjerne" are, but I have always wondered myself if it could cause confusion when you don't mean it in the "general" way, but more in the sense "the cold ONE".
> 
> Although, I still would have expected "et kaldt et" here.
> 
> Thanks for any clarity on the issue, especially since I don't think this is mentioned in any materials one can easily find for foreigners, and I wouldn't know what to be looking for in Norwegian to find a rule.


For me it seems just as en error made by a negligent writer that changed the contents of the sentence and forgot to check for consistency, or written by somebody not very proficient in Norwegian (copy paste).


----------



## sjiraff

Ben Jamin said:


> For me it seems just as en error made by a negligent writer that changed the contents of the sentence and forgot to check for consistency, or written by somebody not very proficient in Norwegian (copy paste).



You know I thought the exact same when I first read it, but when I asked my friend he said there is nothing wrong with it! 

To be honest I have found a lot of translations from English "famous quotes" from this source, and some of them seem dubious. 

Do you think it is true that changing things from "det kalde" to "den kalde" somehow makes it clearer to the ears? To be honest as a foreigner I would hae said "det varme legemet til det kalde legemet" (repeating it again) just so as to be sure I'm not talking about "det kalde" outside or something.

Thanks


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> You know I thought the exact same when I first read it, but when I asked my friend he said there is nothing wrong with it!


You have mentioned a friend in other threads. Is this the same one?



sjiraff said:


> Do you think it is true that changing things from "det kalde" to "den kalde" somehow makes it clearer to the ears? To be honest as a foreigner I would hae said "det varme legemet til det kalde legemet" (repeating it again) just so as to be sure I'm not talking about "det kalde" outside or something.


Clearer? No, it just looks non-native.


----------



## sjiraff

myšlenka said:


> You have mentioned a friend in other threads. Is this the same one?


It is actually, he comes from Bærum (if that shines any light on what kind of way of speaking he has)




myšlenka said:


> Clearer? No, it just looks non-native.



So am I right in saying the underlined parts should have said "et kaldt et" and "fra det varme legemet til det kalde"?

But I thought the same as you Myšlenka, it seems inconsistant and machine-translated. Thinking on it now though, I've only ever seen "den ene" but never a neutral gender version of this.


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> It is actually, he comes from Bærum (if that shines any light on what kind of way of speaking he has)


 With Norwegian speaking parents?


sjiraff said:


> So am I right in saying the underlined parts should have said "et kaldt et" and "fra det varme legemet til det kalde"?


Yes!


sjiraff said:


> But I thought the same as you Myšlenka, it seems inconsistant and machine-translated. Thinking on it now though, I've only ever seen "den ene" but never a neutral gender version of this.


Google it and you'll find many.


----------



## sjiraff

myšlenka said:


> With Norwegian speaking parents?



Yep! The one who also said I should never say "jeg har et likt et", but always "en lik en".



myšlenka said:


> Google it and you'll find many.


Ah I actually realised how daft I was there, I have seen it lots of times with "det ene". 


So given that we would say "det kalde" here - is it one of those things one just understands from context? As in, that the person doesn't mean "overført til det kalde" as in "the cold" but they mean, "det kalde legemet". (The ambiguity in English would be avoided by saying "the cold one", in contrast to saying just "the cold" which would change the meaning to it being left outside or something)


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> Yep! The one who also said I should never say "jeg har et likt et", but always "en lik en".


The one with the Wasa joke no-one could understand...


sjiraff said:


> So given that we would say "det kalde" here - is it one of those things one just understands from context?


Yes, it is.


----------



## sjiraff

Thanks Myšlenka, I feel kind of like I've made a pointless thread since it is a bad translation, but if there had existed such a rule with genders I definately would've needed to know about it!

Thanks


----------

