# Norwegian: Earthquake that devastated...



## Grefsen

Several of my friends who live in Norway have been asking me about the huge earthquake that was felt in Southern California the afternoon of Easter Sunday.  

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

The earthquake we felt on Easter Sunday was twice as powerful as the one in Haiti that devastated the capital city of Port-au-Prince nearly three months ago. 

Mitt forsok:

Jordskjelvet vi kjente på påskesøndag var dobbelt så kraftig som den i Haiti som *herjet* hovedstaden Port-au-Prince nesten tre måneder siden.

I wasn't sure which *norskord* I should use for "devastated" and ended up using *herjet.*

Here are two other *norskord* that may also mean "devastate:"

*rasere og ødelegge*


----------



## vestfoldlilja

Grefsen said:


> The earthquake we felt on Easter Sunday was twice as powerful as the one in Haiti that devastated the capital city of Port-au-Prince nearly three months ago.
> 
> Mitt forsok:
> 
> Jordskjelvet vi kjente på påskesøndag var dobbelt så kraftig som den i Haiti som *herjet* hovedstaden Port-au-Prince nesten tre måneder siden.



Mitt forsok needs to be mitt forsøk.

Kjente, isn’t the proper word to use here. Opplevde (experienced) is a word much more appropriate in Norwegian. Kjente is okay if you speak of your self alone, or as part of a group of people who were with you at the time. 


Grefsen said:


> I wasn't sure which *norskord* I should use for "devastated" and ended up using *herjet.*
> 
> Here are two other *norskord* that may also mean "devastate:"
> 
> *rasere og ødelegge*



_Herjet_ would be a better word in my opinion to use to describe a hurricane as that is something that, more easily than an earthquake is seen moving from place to place. I don’t know if people will agree with me, but herjet is a word often used to describe strong storms that leaves places, if not in ruin, than at least not in the same state as before the storm set in, and that moves hurriedly along to the next place.  

I would not use _ødelegge_ in this context, but rasere works. Another expression often used is _legge i ruiner_ (to lay in ruin). 

I’ve written two examples for you. 

Jordskjelvet vi opplevde Påskesøndag var dobbelt så kraftig som det på Haiti, som raserte hovedstaden Port-au-Prince for nesten tre måneder siden. 

Jordskjelvet vi opplevde på påskesøndagen var dobbelt så kraftig som det på Haiti, som la hovedstaden Port-au-Prince i ruiner for nesten tre måneder siden.


----------



## Grefsen

vestfoldlilja said:


> Mitt forsok needs to be mitt forsøk.


En skriveleif.  



vestfoldlilja said:


> Kjente, isn’t the proper word to use here. Opplevde (experienced) is a word much more appropriate in Norwegian. Kjente is okay if you speak of your self alone, or as part of a group of people who were with you at the time.


Takk for det! 



vestfoldlilja said:


> _Herjet_ would be a better word in my opinion to use to describe a hurricane as that is something that, more easily than an earthquake is seen moving from place to place. I don’t know if people will agree with me, but herjet is a word often used to describe strong storms that leaves places, if not in ruin, than at least not in the same state as before the storm set in, and that moves hurriedly along to the next place.


It sounds like '*herje' *could be used to mean a "path of devastation" or something similar to this. 



vestfoldlilja said:


> I would not use _ødelegge_ in this context, but rasere works. Another expression often used is _legge i ruiner_ (to lay in ruin).


Another good option, *takk for det!* 



vestfoldlilja said:


> I’ve written two examples for you.
> 
> Jordskjelvet vi opplevde Påskesøndag var dobbelt så kraftig som det på Haiti, som raserte hovedstaden Port-au-Prince for nesten tre måneder siden.
> 
> Jordskjelvet vi opplevde på påskesøndagen var dobbelt så kraftig som det på Haiti, som la hovedstaden Port-au-Prince i ruiner for nesten tre måneder siden.


Takk for hjelpen!


----------



## Frenchlover1

Another word that can be used is "rammet".

"Jordskjelvet vi opplevde (på) Påskesøndag var dobbelt så kraftig som det som rammet hovedstaden i Haiti, Port-au-Prince, for rundt tre måneder siden."

Å ramme in an other sentence:
Symptomet rammet meg (The symptom "came and took me")


----------



## Grefsen

Tusen takk for hjelpen *Frenchlover1.* 



Frenchlover1 said:


> Another word that can be used is "rammet".
> 
> "Jordskjelvet vi opplevde (på) Påskesøndag var dobbelt så kraftig som det som rammet hovedstaden i Haiti, Port-au-Prince, for rundt tre måneder siden."


Could *"rammet"* be translated into English as "hit" or "struck" in this sentence?


----------



## basslop

Grefsen said:


> Tusen takk for hjelpen *Frenchlover1.*
> 
> Could *"rammet"* be translated into English as "hit" or "struck" in this sentence?



Yes


----------



## Klatremus

Frenchlover1 said:


> Another word that can be used is "rammet".
> 
> "Jordskjelvet vi opplevde (på) Påskesøndag var dobbelt så kraftig som det som rammet hovedstaden i Haiti, Port-au-Prince, for rundt tre måneder siden."
> 
> Å ramme in an other sentence:
> Symptomet rammet meg (The symptom "came and took me")


 
I like the "rammet"-suggestion. Both the word and the sentence as a whole.

Personally I would not use the word "rammet" about a symptom, though. "Jeg ble rammet av malaria" sounds OK to me, but "Jeg ble rammet av feber" I'm not so sure about. To me it is only OK if you consider fever a disease. "Mange pasienter ble rammet av disse symptomene" doesn't work for me. (Maybe this is because I am a health care professional? To me a symptom is not something running around on its own hitting/striking/affecting people.. Symptoms are caused by disease.)


----------



## JohanIII

Why not use ødelegge (ødelagde)?  It is a fitting, and literal, translation, which carries a meaning "hit" doesn't.
I'm reasoning from a Swedish standpoint, where I see ödelägga as a perfect fit: "ödelade" - often seen in news-headings (as a quick google will show). YMMV.


----------



## DeadMule

JohanIII said:


> Why not use ødelegge (ødelagde)?  It is a fitting, and literal, translation, which carries a meaning "hit" doesn't.
> I'm reasoning from a Swedish standpoint, where I see ödelägga as a perfect fit: "ödelade" - often seen in news-headings (as a quick google will show). YMMV.



In theory, "ødelegge" can be used in Norwegian as well, as mentioned in an earlier post. But in this case, "ramme" or "rasere" would be more common and to the point. To me, "ødelegge" leans more towards "broken, beyond repair", and is not used so much in Norwegian about natural disasters/phenomenon. And Norwegian media are in love with words like "ramme", "rasere" and "legge i ruiner". "Ødelegge" just doesn't seem to do it for them...


----------



## Ben Jamin

Grefsen said:


> En skriveleif.
> 
> Takk for det!
> 
> It sounds like '*herje' *could be used to mean a "path of devastation" or something similar to this.
> 
> Another good option, *takk for det!*
> 
> Takk for hjelpen!


 Nobody has pointed out that ordet "norskord" is wrong. It is "norsk ord".
An adjective is almost always written separate (99,9%) from the substantive it describes. Exceptions are really few, for example: "ungkar".


----------

