# Norwegian: Fastholde det (...) i



## sjiraff

Hello again,

I was listening to an audio track from a book and had to check the text to make sure but, I'm unsure as to what this sentence means exactly:

_Og selv om Ove fastholdt det urimelige i å sitte på en stol og ha halen på en annen, så fikk de det til på et vis. Av hensyn til Sonja._

Now my understanding of what the sentence would mean would be something like: Selv om Ove fastholdt at det var urimelig å sitte på en stol og ha..

To me the sentence looks like he maintained/insisted "that which is unreasonable" about sitting on on a chair with your(the cat's) tail on someone else. Have I totally misunderstood here?

Thanks


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Yes, 'maintained' is a good translation


----------



## sjiraff

NorwegianNYC said:


> Yes, 'maintained' is a good translation



But why would it be followed by "...det urimelige i"? 

Thanks!


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> But why would it be followed by "...det urimelige i"?


Is it the underlined e that you are wondering about? It is the same _e_ that shows up in all definite adjectives: _den gamle mannen, de store husene_....


----------



## sjiraff

myšlenka said:


> Is it the underlined e that you are wondering about? It is the same _e_ that shows up in all definite adjectives: _den gamle mannen, de store husene_....



Well it's the -E and the entire sentence really, I don't understand how it makes sense. To me it says "He's insisted 'the unreasonable' 'in sitting'..." when I would have thought it should say "Han fastholdt at det var urimelig å..."

How do you "insist the unreasonable" unless you are the person who is resting his tail, but even then I don't get why it would be worded this way.

Maybe this is just a certain way of speaking in Norwegian we don't have in English?


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> Well it's the -E and the entire sentence really, I don't understand how it makes sense. To me it says "He's insisted 'the unreasonable' 'in sitting'..." when I would have thought it should say "Han fastholdt at det var urimelig å..."


"Han fastholdt det urimelige i å..." and "Han fastholdt at det var urimelig å..." mean the same thing as far as I can see.


----------



## raumar

sjiraff said:


> Maybe this is just a certain way of speaking in Norwegian we don't have in English?



That may be the case. Let's try to look at it this way: In your Norwegian text, the adjective can be replaced with a noun: 

_... Ove fastholdt urimeligheten i å sitte på en stol ...

_Couldn't this construction be used in English as well? "... Ove maintained the unreasonableness of sitting ..."


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> That may be the case. Let's try to look at it this way: In your Norwegian text, the adjective can be replaced with a noun:
> 
> _... Ove fastholdt urimeligheten i å sitte på en stol ...
> 
> _Couldn't this construction be used in English as well? "... Ove maintained the unreasonableness of sitting ..."



Hmm, I could understand it for things like "He stressed the unreasonableness of..", but I think you might be right, maybe like how people say "he maintained his innocence" - but to me it just seemed a bit odd at first because it would be a similar construction to things like "He thoght the unthinkable" or "Achieved the impossible" - where the person is the one DOING it, so to me it would read like _he _is the one maintaining something which is unreasonable. It's not that strange in English actually, maybe the word is just a bit more flexible in Norwegian like that.

Would you guys say this is a more formal/written way of saying it? 

Thanks!


----------



## raumar

Yes, this is different from "He achieved the impossible"; it is more like "He saw the impossibility of [something]". 

This construction is "... det [adjective] i/ved/med å [something]". The adjective does not make any sense on its own, without the "i/ved/med å [something]".

I see "det urimelige i å..." and "at det var urimelig å..." as alternative ways of saying the same thing; I don't think any of them are more formal. But "urimeligheten i å" is, in my opinion, a more formal/written construction.


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> Yes, this is different from "He achieved the impossible"; it is more like "He saw the impossibility of [something]".
> 
> This construction is "... det [adjective] i/ved/med å [something]". The adjective does not make any sense on its own, without the "i/ved/med å [something]".
> 
> I see "det urimelige i å..." and "at det var urimelig å..." as alternative ways of saying the same thing; I don't think any of them are more formal. But "urimeligheten i å" is, in my opinion, a more formal/written construction.



Ahh I understand now, would you say there is much difference between saying i/ved/med? I think "i" is better if there is a verb after? (Like "hva er vitsen i å..." and "hva er vitsen med *gjenstand*")

Thanks!


----------



## raumar

I, ved and med will often be almost interchangable in this kind of construction, but there is a small difference  -- and it should not matter whether there is a verb after. I have not really thought this through, and others may correct me, but I think it is like this: 

"det urimelige i å" [verb]: something is unreasonable in itself. 
"det urimelige med å [verb]": something has an unreasonable aspect.
"det urimelige ved å [verb]": it could be both (I think)

A couple of examples: 
"Tross alle vansker ser hun det gode i å være del av et sterkt fellesskap." http://radio.nrk.no/serie/mellom-himmel-og-jord/DMPT04004413/03-11-2013
In this case, "i" is probably better than "med".

"Noe av det gode med å være i Oslo er å vite at du alltid skal hjem til Bergen". http://www.ba.no/nyheter/article7448528.ece
In this case, "i" would be wrong.


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> I, ved and med will often be almost interchangable in this kind of construction, but there is a small difference  -- and it should not matter whether there is a verb after. I have not really thought this through, and others may correct me, but I think it is like this:
> 
> "det urimelige i å" [verb]: something is unreasonable in itself.
> "det urimelige med å [verb]": something has an unreasonable aspect.
> "det urimelige ved å [verb]": it could be both (I think)
> 
> A couple of examples:
> "Tross alle vansker ser hun det gode i å være del av et sterkt fellesskap." http://radio.nrk.no/serie/mellom-himmel-og-jord/DMPT04004413/03-11-2013
> In this case, "i" is probably better than "med".
> 
> "Noe av det gode med å være i Oslo er å vite at du alltid skal hjem til Bergen". http://www.ba.no/nyheter/article7448528.ece
> In this case, "i" would be wrong.



Hmm I see, I usually would have gone with "ved" for things like that, like "Det vanskeligste ved å lære norsk er..."

But now you say it, it is "i" they say afterall with things like "i og for seg".

But to be honest I'm not sure I get the difference between the two examples fully, but I can understand why only "med"might sound better in the second one since when i say it in English it would sound worse to say "in" than to say "Some of the good things about being in.."


----------



## NorwegianNYC

On a sidenote - the distinction between 'med' and 'ved' is not always clear in Norwegian. There is a tendency in modern Norwegian (and especially in many dialects) to drop 'ved' at the expense of 'med'


----------

