# Norwegian: ikke vs. ingen



## Kiedis

Hello,

I was reading a Jo Nesbø's book and found such a sentence: "Jeg er ingen forræder". (_I'm citing from my memory_)

It's interesting what is the difference between "Jeg er *ingen* forræder" and "Jeg er *ikke *forræder". Does the proper use of "ingen" and "ikke'' change the meaning in sentence?


----------



## hanne

The English translations would be "I'm no traitor" and "I'm not a traitor". I'd say the difference between the two is the same in Norwegian as in English - which means that I think there's a nuance, but I can't put my finger on it... If that was of any help...


----------



## Frenchlover1

*ikke = not/do not*
Det snør ikke - It is not snowing
Han ser ikke film hver uke - He does not watch movies every week

*ingen/ikke noen = no/no one/non*
Ingen av dem rakk toget - Non of them managed to catch the train
Det var ingen stygg jente - That/it was not an ugly girl
(Look - the way both of these are written in English may also be used when writing in Norwegian! _Ikke noen av dem rakk toget_ and _Det var ikke en stygg jente_ are absolutely correct, though you have to remember the article (_en_) in the last sentence!)

So, in your example, if you want to use the word _ikke_, it has to be used this way: "Jeg er ikke _en_ forræder" = I am not a betrayer. If not, you say "I am not betrayer" 

Hope that helps


----------



## ermannoitaly

Hei/ Hi
ingen // ikke noen

For eksempel er det mulig å uttrykke det samme begrepet (dvs. ikke noen = ingen) med denne følgende setningen ?:
Jeg møtte ikke noen av dem ved toget.
Takk
Mvh


----------



## Frenchlover1

*ermannoitaly:* Yes!!!

Jeg møtte ingen av dem på toget (_på_ is the right word to use here (instead of _ved_), if referring to "on the train")
Jeg møtte ikke noen av dem på toget




Good one by the way!  You're very clever!


----------



## Kiedis

Tusen takk, Frenchlover1, dine forklaringer er krystallklare og veldig nyttige


----------



## Frenchlover1

Thank you so much!! Your gratefulness is highly appreciated!


----------



## ermannoitaly

Frenchlover1 said:


> *ermannoitaly:* Yes!!!
> 
> Jeg møtte ingen av dem på toget (_på_ is the right word to use here (instead of _ved_), if referring to "on the train")
> Jeg møtte ikke noen av dem på toget
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good one by the way!  You're very clever!



Hei igjen
Flink i norsk? Jeg/meg ?
Tusen takk for svaret !
Bra jobbet !
Kan jeg få lov til å skrive deg i privat ?/
Mvh


----------



## hanne

Frenchlover1 said:


> "Jeg er ikke _en_ forræder"


Is it really that simple?
In Danish I'd say that "jeg er ikke forræder", "jeg er ingen forræder" and "jeg er ikke nogen forræder" would all be valid, with a slight variation in nuance, and depending on the conversation leading up to it (could be an actual accusation of treason, or just the general discussion of it, etc. etc.). But it's possible that I'm reading more into the question than what the asker intended.

Furthermore I'd be inclined to prefer "ikke nogen forræder" over "ikke en forræder" as being the most gramatically correct. What do others say?

Note to ermanno: I believe "ved toget" would also be correct (at least it would in Danish), if you mean "at the train", i.e. waiting on the platform. But that's way off topic for this thread.


----------



## Frenchlover1

hanne said:


> Is it really that simple?
> In Danish I'd say that "jeg er ikke forræder", "jeg er ingen forræder" and "jeg er ikke nogen forræder" would all be valid, with a slight variation in nuance, and depending on the conversation leading up to it (could be an actual accusation of treason, or just the general discussion of it, etc. etc.). But it's possible that I'm reading more into the question than what the asker intended.



Yes, they (_jeg er ikke en forræder_ and _jeg er ingen forræder_) are both absolutely correct! I would prefer the last one, though, due to the fact that it is shortened in a way (_ikke en_ is constricted into one word, _ingen_). 

Saying "Jeg er ikke forræder" in Norwegian sounds just as weird as the English "I am not betrayer".


----------



## Frenchlover1

*ermannoitaly:* "Jeg" is the right word  I know it is e.g. "moi" (object form) in French, etc.  Maybe in Italiano as well? 

PM: Yes, of course you can!


----------



## ermannoitaly

Hei / ciao
Takk for svaret !
Det er snill av deg !!
Det er rart, men 
"Jeg" (subjekt form) heter "Io" på italiensk og "Je"på fransk; 
"meg" (objekt form) på norsk heter "me" på italiensk og "moi" som du riktig sa , på fransk.
Takk
Mvh


----------



## Tegocalderon

Hei Ermanno, kan jeg spørre om hvorfor vil du lære akkurat norsk, av alle språk ?
(Ermanno, come mai vuoi imparare proprio il norvegese, se non sono troppo indiscreto)


----------



## ermannoitaly

Hei 
Takk for e-posten.
Jeg kan forstå  noe italiensk, litt norsk,litt svensk,litt fransk,litt engelsk,litt latin,,
litt tysk og ...basta (det er det  samme både på norsk og italiensk).
Posso solo risponderti che ho alcuni amici in Norvegia.  
Mvh / ciao


----------



## Magb

Frenchlover1 said:


> Saying "Jeg er ikke forræder" in Norwegian sounds just as weird as the English "I am not betrayer".



Out of curiosity, would you say "Jeg er ikke lege" ("I'm not a doctor") or "Jeg er ikke en lege"? I know there's a bit of a generational gap in parts of Norway, where younger people are more likely to use the indefinite article. Personally I find both "Jeg er ikke forræder" and "Jeg er ikke en forræder" rather strange, but the one without the indefinite article sounds better to me. But I'd prefer "Jeg er ikke noen forræder" or "Jeg er ingen forræder".


----------



## ermannoitaly

Hei
Han er lege // han er ikke lege --
Det er sant. 
Så vidt jeg vet, bruker mange nordmenn vanligvis denne ubestemte formen.
Likevel vet jeg ikke om dette er unntaket som bekrefter regelen.
Mvh


----------



## Cagey

Moderator's note:
Please confine discussion in this thread to the original topic. 


Kiedis said:


> Hello,
> 
> I was reading a Jo Nesbø's book and found such a sentence: "Jeg er ingen forræder". (_I'm citing from my memory_)
> 
> It's interesting what is the difference between "Jeg er *ingen* forræder" and "Jeg er *ikke *forræder". Does the proper use of "ingen" and "ikke'' change the meaning in sentence?


Any other interesting topics that arise should be given their own threads.

Thank you.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Frenchlover1 said:


> *ikke = not/do not*
> Det snør ikke - It is not snowing
> Han ser ikke film hver uke - He does not watch movies every week
> 
> *ingen/ikke noen = no/no one/non*
> Ingen av dem rakk toget - Non of them managed to catch the train
> Det var ingen stygg jente - That/it was not an ugly girl
> (Look - the way both of these are written in English may also be used when writing in Norwegian! _Ikke noen av dem rakk toget_ and _Det var ikke en stygg jente_ are absolutely correct, though you have to remember the article (_en_) in the last sentence!)
> 
> So, in your example, if you want to use the word _ikke_, it has to be used this way: "Jeg er ikke _en_ forræder" = I am not a betrayer. If not, you say "I am not betrayer"
> 
> Hope that helps


 But how will you explain the difference between the two expressions (er inngen/er) without referring to an English translation?


----------



## Leopold

Ben Jamin said:


> But how will you explain the difference between the two expressions (er inngen/er) without referring to an English translation?



I think in "Jeg er ikke (en) forræder" you are negating the verb, but with "Jeg er ingen  forræder" you negate the noun.

So I would say "ikke" affects the verb, "inge(n)" affects the noun. Is that what you were asking?


----------

