# Norwegian: smak på den du



## sjiraff

Hi everyone, I have had no time to ask questions lately but I hope you're all well,

I was just wondering why sometimes people say things like "smak på DEN", or "ser DEN" another one of these things involving genders I can never get my head around.

For example, if someone says "jeg klarer ikke gå opp trappe fordi jeg mangler bein" would you say "ser den" as in, I can see that or "ser det"? 

My friend said it had something to do with "det" not being something abstract, and that if you say "ser den" it means you can see his problem.

Thanks for any possible help and I appreciate all the help you guys give here


----------



## raumar

That's not an easy question! I am not sure that I have the correct answers here, but let's try.

First, "(jeg) ser den/det". This can mean three different things, I think:

1) You see a specific object. No problem, the gender of the object decides whether it is "det" or "den".

2) You see a situation. This is the literal interpretation of your example: you see with your own eyes that he doesn't have any legs and is unable to walk up the stairs. Your friend is right: here it has to be "ser det", not "den".

3) "Ser" is used figuratively - it means "I understand that", "I get your point". This is the other interpretation of your example. I don't really think Norwegian has any clear rules for this situation. Again I agree with your friend -- "den" is often used, but "det" isn't wrong, in my opinion.

Then, "smak på den/det, du":

1) The literal meaning: You ask somebody to taste some food. No problem, the gender of the food decides, as in 1) above.

2) Figuratively, as a part of a physical attack or a verbal challenge. Almost like 3) above, but here I would definitely say "den". This is almost a set phrase.

Does this make sense?


----------



## Bokfinken

In the example "jeg klarer ikke gå opp trappen fordi jeg mangler bein", both "ser det" and "ser den" are possible, but they don’t express exactly the same thing.

(Jeg) ser det: I can see that (I think most people would include "Jeg" in this phrase)
Ser den: Get it (informal speech)
"Smak på den" is definitely a set phrase when used figuratively. But I have no idea why we say "smak på DEN", but "tenk på DET"!

Not an easy question indeed!


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> That's not an easy question! I am not sure that I have the correct answers here, but let's try.
> 
> First, "(jeg) ser den/det". This can mean three different things, I think:
> 
> 1) You see a specific object. No problem, the gender of the object decides whether it is "det" or "den".
> 
> 2) You see a situation. This is the literal interpretation of your example: you see with your own eyes that he doesn't have any legs and is unable to walk up the stairs. Your friend is right: here it has to be "ser det", not "den".
> 
> 3) "Ser" is used figuratively - it means "I understand that", "I get your point". This is the other interpretation of your example. I don't really think Norwegian has any clear rules for this situation. Again I agree with your friend -- "den" is often used, but "det" isn't wrong, in my opinion.
> 
> Then, "smak på den/det, du":
> 
> 1) The literal meaning: You ask somebody to taste some food. No problem, the gender of the food decides, as in 1) above.
> 
> 2) Figuratively, as a part of a physical attack or a verbal challenge. Almost like 3) above, but here I would definitely say "den". This is almost a set phrase.
> 
> Does this make sense?



Thanks Raumar, I think so, I think the reason I got a bit confused is becuase both phrases are similar in that they can both by literally meaning something but also figurative. Maybe"smak på den du"  is a bit like when you say "den svir!" if someone says something nasty, or I've noticed people always saying "Den er grei" despite the fact I don't see any specific -en gendered thing.

Thanks very much for that, hugely appreciated as always.


----------



## sjiraff

Bokfinken said:


> In the example "jeg klarer ikke gå opp trappen fordi jeg mangler bein", both "ser det" and "ser den" are possible, but they don’t express exactly the same thing.
> 
> (Jeg) ser det: I can see that (I think most people would include "Jeg" in this phrase)
> Ser den: Get it (informal speech)
> "Smak på den" is definitely a set phrase when used figuratively. But I have no idea why we say "smak på DEN", but "tenk på DET"!
> 
> Not an easy question indeed!



Hmm I guess it boils down to languages not being planned things but often have a mind of their own, but what makes "Ser den" more informal speech? 

Thanks


----------



## Bokfinken

It's just an expression you wouldn't use in a formal context.


----------



## raumar

I don't have any evidence for this, but my impression is that "Den er grei" and "Ser den" are more recent expressions, almost a kind of slang. In any case, it is nothing wrong with "Det er greit".

Happy New Year!


----------



## Bokfinken

I would totally agree with that, raumar. They are slangish (unlike "Det er greit"). 

Happy New Year!


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> I don't have any evidence for this, but my impression is that "Den er grei" and "Ser den" are more recent expressions, almost a kind of slang. In any case, it is nothing wrong with "Det er greit".
> 
> Happy New Year!





Bokfinken said:


> I would totally agree with that, raumar. They are slangish (unlike "Det er greit").
> 
> Happy New Year!



Hmm I see, I actually hear these a lot from the chap I've mentioned before who you guys couldn't believe was a native speaker, maybe it is a more young-thing!  I'm always really worried I refer to things with the wrong gender so when I see things like this I just have to investigate them.

Godt nytt år til dere


----------

