# Norwegian: adjectives after unquantifiable nouns



## sjiraff

Hi everyone,

I had a bit of confusion earlier when (I can't remember exactly what it was I said but it was the same as this example for all intents and pursposes)

If I were to say "mat er sun" (food is healthy) or something like "ferdigmat er usun", is this wrong? Should it be "mat er sunt", even though "mat" is clearly -EN gendered? To me it reads like "food is unhealthely" or something. Someone told me you would not say "sun" because you cannot count food, but this seems really annoying considering how confusing it can be to allocate genders to things as it is and I always assumed you would stick with the gender of the noun regardless of if it can be quantified or not, unless it was in plural form then it would be "sunne".

Thanks!


----------



## myšlenka

When you are talking about things in general, you use neuter agreement.


----------



## cevita

Yeah what myšlenka said! 
It goes like this: Han/hun (referring to a person, not an object) er sunn, det er sunt, de er sunne.

It sounds like you are questioning the subject of the sentence (mat) though, and not the adjective?
I am not sure how to say this in English, but when the adjective (sunn) is not shaped in accordance with the subject (mat) it gets nøytrumsform (neuter shape) when the noun is indefinite in shape and adjective expressing taste or judgement. Which is kinda what is happening here. Does that makes sence?

Examples: Fisk er godt - mat er sunt - Vin er dyrt

It would look like this when the noun is in definite form: Fisken er god - maten er sunn - Vinen er dyr.


----------



## sjiraff

Ahh thanks guys, I had absolutely no idea about this. I know without a doubt I'll accidentally conjugate the adjectives differently anyway, but this is really good to know and I'll try to make it stick. I swear they don't teach this in any Norwegian/English textbooks!

Thanks again


----------



## NorwegianNYC

The difference is whether you refer to the item as a specific or a general entity. Once specific, it has to be in agreement with the gender and number, but as a general label, it "reverts" to being neuter


----------



## Ben Jamin

Dos anybody know the rationale of this rule? For me it seems as if the adjective changes into an adverb in such constructions.


----------



## sjiraff

Ben Jamin said:


> Dos anybody know the rationale of this rule? For me it seems as if the adjective changes into an adverb in such constructions.



An adverb, how so? I thought adverbs only describe an action (how it is happening). Like "ready-food is unhealthily prepared" would be "ferdigmat blir usunt tilberedt" (I think?). But what I was trying to say is that "ready-meals themselves" are just unhealthy. I guess it _is _general and unquantifiable, but you would think since the gender of "mat" is -en that it would have no reason to really change here (but now i've been told otherwise!)

And I'm wondering now that if one were to say, "ferdigmat og kjøttdeig er *unhealthy*" you would have to say "usu*nt*" too, even though you just listed two things which are both general?
To be honest genders are still the big thorn in my side with Norwegian, I still can't get my head around how you deal with objects which might be regarded as different nouns with different genders if you want to refer to them passively, such as if you point to a screwdriver do you say "kan du sende meg det" (det skrujernet) or "den" (Den skrutrekkeren)!


----------



## Ben Jamin

sjiraff said:


> An adverb, how so? I thought adverbs only describe an action (how it is happening). Like "ready-food is unhealthily prepared" would be "ferdigmat blir usunt tilberedt" (I think?). But what I was trying to say is that "ready-meals themselves" are just unhealthy. I guess it _is _general and unquantifiable, but you would think since the gender of "mat" is -en that it would have no reason to really change here (but now i've been told otherwise!)
> 
> And I'm wondering now that if one were to say, "ferdigmat og kjøttdeig er *unhealthy*" you would have to say "usu*nt*" too, even though you just listed two things which are both general?
> To be honest genders are still the big thorn in my side with Norwegian, I still can't get my head around how you deal with objects which might be regarded as different nouns with different genders if you want to refer to them passively, such as if you point to a screwdriver do you say "kan du sende meg det" (det skrujernet) or "den" (Den skrutrekkeren)!


It can be an _implied _action "[Å spise] fett mat er usun*t*." But "Dette *er* usu*nn* mat".


----------



## sjiraff

Ben Jamin said:


> It can be an _implied _action "[Å spise] fett mat er usun*t*." But "Dette *er* usu*nn* mat".



Ah yes, I see what you mean but I don't think that's why it is neutral in this case, because think about "skog er grønt" and such.


----------



## raumar

sjiraff said:


> And I'm wondering now that if one were to say, "ferdigmat og kjøttdeig er *unhealthy*" you would have to say "usu*nt*" too, even though you just listed two things which are both general?



Yes, that's right. But to make it more complicated: We say "Fisken er god" and "Fisk er godt", but also "All fisk er god" (not "godt"). I can't really explain why, but I suppose that "all fisk" is not seen as a general entity, but as something that comprises salmon, trout, cod etc. 

To make it even more complicated: This is not limited to unquantifiable nouns: we can say either "Gulrøtter er sunne" or "Gulrøtter er sunt". I suppose that depends on whether we conceptualize "carrots" as the individual carrots or a general category of foodstuff. But this does not work for all adjectives: we can say "tomater er sunt" but not "tomater er rødt". Here it must be "røde". Cevita's distinctions in post #3 seem to make sense.


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> Yes, that's right. But to make it more complicated: We say "Fisken er god" and "Fisk er godt", but also "All fisk er god" (not "godt"). I can't really explain why, but I suppose that "all fisk" is not seen as a general entity, but as something that comprises salmon, trout, cod etc.
> 
> To make it even more complicated: This is not limited to unquantifiable nouns: we can say either "Gulrøtter er sunne" or "Gulrøtter er sunt". I suppose that depends on whether we conceptualize "carrots" as the individual carrots or a general category of foodstuff. But this does not work for all adjectives: we can say "tomater er sunt" but not "tomater er rødt". Here it must be "røde". Cevita's distinctions in post #3 seem to make sense.



Thanks very much Raumar, I'm surprised about gulrøtter so it's good to know this kind of thing!

Håper alle har en bra dag


----------



## Ben Jamin

raumar said:


> But this does not work for all adjectives: we can say "tomater er sunt" but not "tomater er rødt". Here it must be "røde". Cevita's distinctions in post #3 seem to make sense.



It seems to strengthen my "implied verb+adverb" hypothesis. There can't be any implied verb behind "rødt".


----------



## NorwegianNYC

But that does not work for "tomat er rødt. Agurk er grønt". Then it is still an adjective


----------



## sjiraff

NorwegianNYC said:


> But that does not work for "tomat er rødt. Agurk er grønt". Then it is still an adjective



This just adds to the confusion for me!

Why would you say skog er grønt and not tomat er rødt?


----------



## Ben Jamin

NorwegianNYC said:


> But that does not work for "tomat er rødt. Agurk er grønt". Then it is still an adjective



But Raumar just said that you can't say "tomat er rødt".


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Of course you can say it! If "en tomat er rød" has validity in the sense one is describing the color of a single tomato, but "tomat er rødt" is the color perception of the concept of tomato. In other words, it is the concept of 'tomato' rather than the object of 'a tomato'


----------



## raumar

Ben Jamin said:


> But Raumar just said that you can't say "tomat er rødt".



What I wrote was that you can't say that "tomater er rødt" - in the plural form. And I still believe that there is a difference between adjectives in that case ("tomater er sunt" vs "tomater er rødt"). 

The singular form is different, and I understand NorwegianNYC's argument. On the other hand, "tomat er rødt" sounds a bit artificial to me. It may be grammatically correct, but it is difficult to think of a situation where you actually would say or write this sentence. The only example I can think of, is if you are teaching a child the colours.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

I am with you in that! It is not everyday usage. How about "is er hardt" and "isen er hard"? Or, "snø er tungt (å måke)" and "snøen er tung (å måke)"? The concept of ice/snow vs. the actual objects.


----------



## Ben Jamin

NorwegianNYC said:


> I am with you in that! It is not everyday usage. How about "is er hardt" and "isen er hard"? Or, "snø er tungt (å måke)" and "snøen er tung (å måke)"? The concept of ice/snow vs. the actual objects.



In "snø er tungt (å måke)" we have an implied verb, and then we can suppose that the adjective is actually an adverb. I understand that this explanation does not work in other cases, but it might have influenced the use. The distinction between concrete and abstract meaning sounds as an "a posteriori" explanation.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Well, the distinction between the engendered description of the concrete, and the neuter description of the abstract is real enough. There is a semantic difference between "fisk er sunt" and "fisken er sunn"


----------



## Ben Jamin

NorwegianNYC said:


> Well, the distinction between the engendered description of the concrete, and the neuter description of the abstract is real enough. There is a semantic difference between "fisk er sunt" and "fisken er sunn"


Yes, I understand this, but I was wondering how this differentiated usage of adjectives was created. It is not very likely that some people talked together, and agreed that "now we'll use the neuter form to denote the general usage and the correct gender for the concrete".


----------



## NorwegianNYC

OK - I understand. I will have to amend this reply later.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Ben Jamin:

This agreement between a non-neuter or plural noun, and an adjective in neuter, presupposes that the noun is not definite and not accompanied by an article. We cannot say “*en bil er dyrt” or “*bilene er dyrt” because it violates the principles of grammatical agreement. In Scandinavian, the subject of the sentence cannot consist of a countable noun in indefinite singular. It must either be plural (“biler kjører fort” / ”bilene kjører fort”), definite (“bilen kjører fort” / “bilene kjører fort”) og be accompanied by an article (“en bil kjører fort”). Or, it can be something not countable, such as “melk finner du i kjøleskapet” and “det er elg i skogen”.

These two categories have in common that they are referential. The noun refers to something or someone specific. Therefore, the noun is “dressed” in a reference to something.
However, sometimes nouns are without specific references. These non-referential nouns are known as ‘naked nouns’ (or naked nomen), and they have interesting properties. When a noun is stripped of number and gender, and is no longer invested with a particular reference, different grammatical patterns apply.

For one, the noun reverts to neuter. If you think about it, it is obvious; without gender and number affiliation, it must be neuter. It is only when engendered, numbered and/or referential, the gender affiliation applies, and only under these circumstances, will there be a noun-adjective-possessive/determiner agreement. A naked noun does not predicate a specific property, because it is no longer a working noun, but the concept of the noun.

The process of becoming non-referential is called conceptualization. It is unique to the Scandinavian languages Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. “Bil er dyrt” is an example, so is “fisk er sunt” and “pannekaker er godt”. The latter is interesting since it is a conceptualization of the plural, but once conceptualized, it has become a naked noun.

These structures do no longer address the specifics of a noun, but the surrounding circumstances of a concept. “Bil er dyrt” applies to every car there is, because it is expensive to buy a car, own a car, use a car etc., regardless of what kind of car it is. Consider this sentence: “Pistol er mer effektivt enn kniv”. The message is not that a particular pistol is more efficient (as a weapon) than a particular knife, but that pistols in general (as a concept) are more efficient (as weapons) than knives is general (as a concept). It can also be negated: “Tresko er ikke populært”
Sometimes entire phrases will be conceptualized: “En ny politikk hadde ikke vært dumt”. Here “en ny politikk” has meltet together and morphed into a concept.

In grammar, these are often referred to as “Scandinavian pancake sentences”, a term coined by the Norwegian linguist Hans-Olav Enger, based on an article called “Sill är gott” by Swedish linguist Gun Widmark. The “pancake”-part is from the example I mentioned above “pannekaker er godt”.

If you are interested, I suggest you google ‘Scandinavian pancake sentences’. There should be several articles on the topic online.


----------



## Ben Jamin

To NorwegianNYC
Thank you for your comprehensive explanation! It is a very interesting subject. The phenomenon itself seems to be quite complicated, and i had to read it a couple of times to grasp the essence. The most stunning was the concept of a "noun stripped of gender". Is it absolutely limited to the Scandinavian languages, or does it occur in any other language?


----------



## NorwegianNYC

As far as I know, it only pertains to Scandinavian (Norw, Swe & Dan). The idea of shedding the gender is strange, and sometimes it can be argues it is not entirely true. It might be argued that "bil" is inherently grammatically masculine - article or not. However, in singular, indefinite, and without an article, there is really nothing left of the grammatical gender. The word has ceased to refer to something actual, and has become an idea, a notion or a concept of something - i.e. it has become non-referential and abstract.
There is something oddly Plato-esque to this...


----------



## bicontinental

Interesting and excellent explanation above, NYC!

It might be helpful to learners of this construction to imply “something” (noe) to illustrate and emphasize the indefinite and conceptualized form of the noun and therefore of the predicate adjective as well (akin to what is seen in German, etwas Gut*es*, etwas Neu*es* etc. (where the predicate is in the neuter in addition to getting nominalized.)

snø er (noe) tungt, tomater er (noe) rødt, gulrøtter er (noe) sunt.

Bic.


----------



## sjiraff

Thanks very much NYC, especially in post 23 cleared up some things I had actually wondered in the past.


----------

