# Swedish: man



## Språkliga Möten

Hi.

I sometimes hear when they refer to themselves as "man" as in

me: har du varit där?

him: Det är nog längsen man har varit till...

What would be the difference if he answered "Det är nog längsen jag har varit till..."?


----------



## jonquiliser

Yes, there are people who speak like that. Some people really take it to an extreme, saying for example "man har haft så bråttom på senaste tiden" when they really mean themselves only. Or like in your example. It's an interesting idiosyncracy. The difference is perhaps mainly personal, expressing some sort of distance in using an indirect way of speaking about oneself.


----------



## solregn

Some people use the impersonal _man_ instead of _jag_ when speaking about what they've done, what they think, etc (e.g. _Man tycker ju det_ instead of _Jag tycker ju det_). As jonquiliser points out this is often just a question of certain people's way of expressing themselves (maybe there are regional differences?), but it can also be a kind of "evasive" strategy where you want to tone down the importance of yourself in what you are saying. For example, it's much more direct to say _Jag tycker att du borde väntat till klockan tre_ than _Man tycker (ju) att du borde väntat till klockan tre (åtminstone)_.  

Without more context I think that it's hard to give a definite answer regarding the sentence in question, but at a first glance there would no big difference in replying in either way. 

However, apart from the question of _jag_ or _man_, I think that "Det *var* längesen man/jag *var* till..." is a more idiomatic way of saying it


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

jonquiliser said:


> The difference is perhaps mainly personal, expressing some sort of distance in using an indirect way of speaking about oneself.


Hehe, yes - I use it mainly for mundane and/or boring chores, where jag or vi is exchanged for man. Examples:

(Looking at my greasy hair) - Man borde kanske tvätta håret.
(to my daughter, after dinner) - Man borde kanske diska. (implying *we* should do it, but the underlying message is: dear daughter, please do the washing up!)

If I remember correctly, the French also have a propensity for speaking about themselves in third person, i.e. using the impersonal pronoun on, but I can't remember in what contexts - my French is very rusty...

/Wilma


----------



## solregn

Wilma_Sweden said:


> If I remember correctly, the French also have a propensity for speaking about themselves in third person, i.e. using the impersonal pronoun on, but I can't remember in what contexts - my French is very rusty...



Hi Wilma!
In most contexts (apart from the most formal ones, as always in french!! ) the impersonal on can replace nous, i.e. 'we' - e.g. "On est allé au cinéma hier" = "We went to the cinema yesterday"

However this is mainly (if not solely) used as a plural form - I've never heard a french person using on when talking about just themselves as one person. Now if you have a french person with split personalities... 

Btw, I completely agree with the use of "man" for things you don't feel like doing - "man kanske borde jobba..."


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

solregn said:


> Now if you have a French person with split personalities...


Hehe, yes, I can see that happening... Thanks for explaining the French usage, anyway.

I often wish I had a Swedish grammar book for foreign learners, it would make it so much easier to explain the rules that we all (native speakers) know but cannot formulate easily.

/Wilma


----------



## dinji

solregn said:


> Hi Wilma!
> In most contexts (apart from the most formal ones, as always in french!! ) the impersonal on can replace nous, i.e. 'we' - e.g. "On est allé au cinéma hier" = "We went to the cinema yesterday"
> 
> However this is mainly (if not solely) used as a plural form - I've never heard a french person using on when talking about just themselves as one person. Now if you have a french person with split personalities...


The same goes for brazilian Portuguese, where the sentence above would be something like "A gente foi...." 'We [the people] went....'

I think we here have to to with a general tendency to do away with personal endings. The second person was already rationalized/terminated, now it is time for the first person to go.


----------



## Mr.TechComm

This is called *Pluralis modestiae (plural of modesty)*. 

The use of the plural form "we" when we mean "I" is called *Pluralis Majestatis* (Latin) and we also have it in Spanish. I actually "bumped into" *this expression* when reading Liza Marklund's Nobels Testamente (if my memory serves me right, it was Annika, the main character, who used it after arguing with someone, probably her husband).

*"Pluralis Majestatis (Majestic Plural) is the use of the plural pronoun in reference to oneself alone. This is also known as the 'Royal we' (or Victorian we)"* 
( www dot onpedia dot com slash encyclopedia slash Pluralis-Majestatis)

See *Pluralis Majestatis *also in Wikipedia - this phrase is even in different languages, namely: English, Svenska, Deutsch, Italiano, etc.


----------



## jonquiliser

I might be mistaken, but I think the use of _man_ in Swedish isn't a case of the majestic plural nor plural of modesty; it's using a passive construction for a first-person relation. The majestic (or modest) plural would be to say ‹vi›. 

The use of French ‹on› and the Finnish ‹[ollaan, tehdään etc]› when talking about ‹us› also isn't a matter majestic/modest plurals, they are passive constructions applied to first-person plurals.



> Hehe, yes - I use it mainly for mundane and/or boring chores, where jag or vi is exchanged for man. Examples:


----------



## Mr.TechComm

jonquiliser said:


> I might be mistaken, but I think the use of _man_ in Swedish isn't a case of the majestic plural nor plural of modesty; it's using a passive construction for a first-person relation. The majestic (or modest) plural would be to say ‹vi›.
> 
> The use of French ‹on› and the Finnish ‹[ollaan, tehdään etc]› when talking about ‹us› also isn't a matter majestic/modest plurals, they are passive constructions applied to first-person plurals.



I agree, I didn't mean the majestic plural and the plural of modesty correspond with all the contexts described above; actually they do not correspond with most of them.

We ("I" ) just tried to add some notes in relation to the use of "we" in some contexts. This is the plural of modesty  
We ("I" again , hi hi) tried to teach something to those who had never heard this expression before.

But... good you mentioned it! Some could misinterpret and apply incorrectly what we ("I" ) included above.

Have a nice weekend you all!


----------



## jonquiliser

Ah, right, I got you wrong then. 

And a nice weekend to you too!


----------



## ArnaudC

solregn said:


> Hi Wilma!
> In most contexts (apart from the most formal ones, as always in french!! ) the impersonal on can replace nous, i.e. 'we' - e.g. "On est allé au cinéma hier" = "We went to the cinema yesterday"
> 
> However this is mainly (if not solely) used as a plural form - I've never heard a french person using on when talking about just themselves as one person.


"Nous" is very formal and polite. You would use it for example in a professional speech. Maybe nobles (if there is any such thing nowadays) use it still.
In eveyday's life, most people will use "on" instead of "nous" to designate 2 or more people (themself included).

The only time you would use "on" to designate a single person is actually to designate someone else and negatively.
"et ben alors, on est encore à la machine à café?..." = "well, you're still/again at the coffee machine?..." (get back to work! understated).


----------

