# Swedish: "en fil" or "ett fil"



## applefarm

Hi,
Dictionary "SAOL 13" says that the specially fermented milk is "en fil".

By my "Swedish-Estonian" dictionary (ca 100'000 words) the word for specially fermented milk is "fil" and there is written that both "en" and "ett" article goes well for that word in that meaning. What can be the reason why the dictionary says that both "en fil" and "ett fil" are allowed? Or can the dictionary be wrong?


----------



## Red Arrow

Ordbok: fil => this dictionary also says ''filen'' (but not ''en fil'', because milk is uncountable)

I wouldn't be surprised if some Swedes do say ''filet''. There are several Dutch words that also have 2 genders.


----------



## MattiasNYC

I don't think any Swede says either "ett fil" or "filet". Sounds very strange to me. I also think that "en fil" is highly unusual if it refers to fermented milk. It does however make complete sense when referring to a lane on the road or a computer file.


----------



## applefarm

But they can say:

"drick your milk!", and there the "your" is either "sitt" or "sin".
Maybe in some swedish dialects the "sitt"would be used.


----------



## MattiasNYC

applefarm said:


> But they can say:
> 
> "drick your milk!", and there the "your" is either "sitt" or "sin".



No, it'd be "Drick _din_ mjölk", where "din" is "your". "Sin" would be "his" or "her".



applefarm said:


> Maybe in some swedish dialects the "sitt"would be used.



I don't think it's ever used with relation to either milk or "fil".


----------



## DerFrosch

I absolutely agree with Mattias that "_filet_" sounds very wrong, I've never heard it used. I just checked in SAOB, however, and to my surprise, both "_filet_" and "_filen_" were accepted. The entry was from 1924 and is obviously dated, but at least it shows that "_filet_" has previously been in use.


----------



## applefarm

My Swe-Est dictionary with ca 100'000 words is from year 2004. I will check soon the newer version of the same book to see if there is still said that "fil" can also be "ett".


----------



## jhswe

Remember that _fil_ is uncountable (so _en fil_, although very rare, must mean "a kind of fil" or possibly "a serving of fil").


----------



## MattiasNYC

applefarm said:


> My Swe-Est dictionary with ca 100'000 words is from year 2004. I will check soon the newer version of the same book to see if there is still said that "fil" can also be "ett".



Well, I doubt you'll hear a single person in Sweden - with a good command of the Swedish language - use "ett".


----------



## applefarm

DerFrosch said:


> I absolutely agree with Mattias that "_filet_" sounds very wrong, I've never heard it used. I just checked in SAOB, however, and to my surprise, both "_filet_" and "_filen_" were accepted. The entry was from 1924 and is obviously dated, but at least it shows that "_filet_" has previously been in use.



How can i look in SAOB that information that you said that on year 1924 was inserted entry of word "fil" and there was said that also "ett" is allowed?
I managed to open such page in SAOB:



> © Svenska Akademien. SAOB spalt: F525; tryckår: 1924
> ...
> FIL fi⁴l, sbst.³, n. KALM Resa 2: 5 (1756) osv.), äv. r. (m. MÖLLER (1790), HAHNSSON (1888)); *best. -et, ss. r. -en*, äv. -n (fihl 1772 ( : Fihl-Skålar); se för övr. under FILBUNKE)
> [sv. dial. (Värml., Dalrna, Norrl., Finl.) fil; av ovisst urspr.; jfr isl. þél, n., löpnad mjölk]
> (bygdemålsfärgat)


http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/show.phtml?filenr=1/68/136.html

Is understand that the bold part says that both "ett" and "en" is allowed. But where is written that on year 1924 was the entry made?

And which book/place should i look in to see if nowadays is the "ett"-version of the word allowed or not?

There on page 209 is "fil s. -en" as "en"-word only and no information about "-et":

Sök i ordlistan | Svenska Akademien

So which book i should believe to be correct then?


----------



## Hans Molenslag

Även i _Nusvensk ordbok _(1915–72) av Olof Östergren anges dubbelt genus. Det framgår tyvärr inte när artikeln skrevs, men de måste säkert ha kommit till bokstaven F någonstans på 1920- eller 1930-talet.

Fil³, -et l. -en. Ldls., särsk. norrländskt. Långmjölk, tätmjölk; även grädde (t. e. hos Pelle Molin). _Äta fil._​
[ldls. = landsdelsord, brukat i bildat tal men blott i vissa trakter.]


----------



## DerFrosch

applefarm said:


> But where is written that on year 1924 was the entry made?


It says "_tryckår: 1924_"; you can see it in the quotation you posted above. "_Tryckår_" means "year of publication".


applefarm said:


> So which book i should believe to be correct then?


SAOL. Even if the latest entries in SAOB that can be found online aren't that ancient (2005), it should *never *be the first source you, as a learner of Swedish, should go to if you want to get information about contemporary Swedish, since it's a historical dictionary. The aim of SAOL, on the other hand, is to describe contemporary Swedish. That's why words which are no longer considered to be in sufficient use are removed in each new edition.

So if you want to check the gender, spelling or inflection of a word, SAOL is the best source available.


----------



## applefarm

DerFrosch said:


> It says "_tryckår: 1924_"; you can see it in the quotation you posted above. "_Tryckår_" means "year of publication".



Let's assume that now i want to find the year when the word "fil" was firstly officially corrected to exclude the "ett" allowance of the word?
For example, was it firstly on year 2005 when some dictionary/institution said that the only correct gender is "en" for that word? Or which year the correction was made, where i can find that datum?


----------



## applefarm

Hans M. said:


> Även i _Nusvensk ordbok _(1915*–72*) av Olof Östergren anges dubbelt genus. Det framgår tyvärr inte när artikeln skrevs, men de måste säkert ha kommit till bokstaven F någonstans på 1920- eller 1930-talet.
> 
> Fil³, -et l. -en. Ldls., särsk. norrländskt. Långmjölk, tätmjölk; även grädde (t. e. hos Pelle Molin). _Äta fil._​
> [ldls. = landsdelsord, brukat i bildat tal men blott i vissa trakter.]



So, i understand, that until 1972 it was officially correct to also use "ett"-gender for "fil", right? But on which year it was declared that only "en" is allowed for that word? Where i can find it out?


----------



## Hans Molenslag

applefarm said:


> So, i understand, that until 1972 it was officially correct to also use "ett"-gender for "fil", right?


No no, you can't deduce that from the year when the last part of the dictionary was finished. Östergren's Nusvensk ordbok was a long-term historical dictionary project. It was published in a large number of installments. By the time the last part of the dictionary was finished, parts of the information in the earlier volumes were already outdated. You can safely assume that in the seventies _fil _had become an n-word only.


----------



## DerFrosch

I think you need to understand, applefarm, that these dictionaries aren't prescriptive, they are descriptive: they describe how the Swedish language is used (or in the case of SAOB, how it has been used over the years). It's not like the Swedish Academy one day suddenly decided that "_filet_" was no longer correct. There is, by the way, no institution with the authority to decide what's _officially _correct Swedish, even if the Swedish Academy has great influence.

The entries in SAOB haven't been updated since they were published, so they won't help you if you want an indication of when "_filet_" was no longer considered correct. There have been 14 editions of SAOL since 1874, though, so you can go through those editions to see when the information changed.

Cross-posted with Hans M.


----------



## Hans Molenslag

applefarm said:


> But on which year it was declared that only "en" is allowed for that word? Where i can find it out?


Well, at a certain point in time, new editions of dictionaries simply stopped mentioning the t-gender because the editors had noticed that it was no longer used. To find out when, you should check older editions of SAOL.


----------



## applefarm

So, my Swe-Est dictionary (from year 2004) describes that the word "fil" genders are both "en" and "ett" but it does not say/prescribe that "ett"-version outdated after 1970s.
I feel that my dictionary still misleads, it should not give the "ett"-variant on 21st century.
I guess they constructed the dictionary by the old SAOL book from year 1926.

In addition i found that word "fil" is not like "apelsin" which is "ett"-word in some sweden districts and "en"-word in some others. The "fil" is not such, it is only and only an "en fil" nowadays.

Source about the apelsin-example is there:




> 2) Några substantiv, t.ex. apelsin och paraply kan vara antingen neutrum (ett apelsin, ett paraply) eller utrum (en apelsin, en paraply). Lokala variationer. Men fil hör inte till dem!


www.brollopstorget.se/forum/thread/368014-filet-eller-filen


----------



## DerFrosch

Yet that thread tells us that at least three people in Sweden do say "_filet_"... It must be a very local thing.


Hans M. said:


> Även i Nusvensk ordbok (1915–72) av Olof Östergren anges dubbelt genus. Det framgår tyvärr inte när artikeln skrevs, men de måste säkert ha kommit till bokstaven F någonstans på 1920- eller 1930-talet.
> 
> Fil³, -et l. -en. Ldls., särsk. norrländskt. Långmjölk, tätmjölk; även grädde (t. e. hos Pelle Molin). Äta fil.
> [ldls. = landsdelsord, brukat i bildat tal men blott i vissa trakter.]


Intressant att både SAOB och Nusvensk ordbok uppger att _fil _är regionalt färgat. Så uppfattas det inte alls idag, utan det används över hela landet.


----------



## applefarm

DerFrosch said:


> Yet that thread tells us that at least three people in Sweden do say "_filet_"... It must be a very local thing.
> 
> Intressant att både SAOB och Nusvensk ordbok uppger att _fil _*är regionalt färgat*. Så uppfattas det inte alls idag, utan det används över hela landet.



Does it mean that according to the books the word "fil" is in some region "ett"-ord? In that case, do those books lie like my dictionary?


----------



## DerFrosch

No, that's not what it means. It means that the word "_fil_" itself is characterized in those dictionaries as being regional, whereas today, that's not how it's perceived. It's now used all over the country.


----------



## applefarm

But do you suggest me to write email to my Swe-Est dictionary (2004, 100000 words) authors and say that their book misleads? Because from this thread i got understanding that the book misleads.
I think it is advisable to write to them, because then the next volume of the book will have correctly the "fil" only as "en" and not with "ett" possibility.


----------



## DerFrosch

I do consider it to be misleading information, yes. In standard Swedish, "_filet_" is simply no longer used. Go ahead and contact them if you want to.


----------



## applefarm

DerFrosch said:


> I do consider it to be misleading information, yes. In standard Swedish, "_filet_" is simply no longer used. Go ahead and contact them if you want to.



I will then, and give feedback to here later.
Meanwhile i will investigate the dictionary other positional mistakes.


----------



## AutumnOwl

If you check Svenska Akademiens Ordlista online, Sök i ordlistan | Svenska Akademien , they have only *fil, -en. *


MattiasNYC said:


> Well, I doubt you'll hear a single person in Sweden - with a good command of the Swedish language - use "ett".


As for claiming that no-one is using the form _"filet" _in Sweden, it's not correct, I found this blog entry: Kallgrötn och filet As far as I can judge the author have a very good command of the Swedish language, but her language is regionally coloured, as she's from Västerbotten. 

You can also find "_filet"_ used in the book Fjällbäcken: Noveller by Björn-Erik Höijer, also an author from the north of Sweden. (The book is available in Google books.)

I would say that _"filet"_ is a local variant still used in the north of Sweden, probably also in some parts of Swedish-speaking Finland, even if the form_ "filen" _is the most common form today in Sweden.


----------



## MattiasNYC

I meant it quite literally. In all my life I haven't heard a single swede ever say "filet". So, as I said, I doubt he will ever hear a single person say it in sweden. I didn't say nobody is using it.


----------



## AutumnOwl

MattiasNYC said:


> So, as I said, I doubt he will ever hear a single person say it in sweden.


Wouldn't that depend on how common it is regionally and if he's going to visit those parts of Sweden?


----------



## MattiasNYC

AutumnOwl said:


> Wouldn't that depend on how common it is regionally and if he's going to visit those parts of Sweden?



Of course it does. I'm sure both you and I have traveled a bit, and I've never encountered the word. I'm just saying I highly doubt a foreigner would. I'm not sure where he'd go and who he'd talk to about what for that to be likely. Plus, I'm sure you agree that to most Swedes it just sounds wrong, despite being used by some.


----------



## applefarm

So seems like the "_filet_" can be in use even nowadays but very-very rarely in some rare region.
Can it be said that it is part of dialect of those rare regions then?
Or should it be said that those rare people just haven't got modern education where books define that "_filen_" is correct instead?
Or why those people say "filet" still today?


----------



## AutumnOwl

If judging from the entry in SAOB, _"filet"_ was the older/original form and _"filen"_ a later variant. One reason why _"filen"_ have become the more common form could be that _"fil"_ is short for _"filmjölk/en"_ and when the "_-mjölk_" was dropped people still used the _"-en_" ending in the definite form. 

I wouldn't say that _"filen"_ is the one and only "correct form" today, it's only the more common form used, and I don't think those who use _"filet" _is less educated or haven't got a modern education. (If "_filet_" was the original definite form, then you could say that those who began using _"filen"_ were those who didn't know the correct definite form of "_fil"_). Maybe those who still say "filet" are more in tune with (and perhaps also proud of) their own dialect/the way people use the language from where they come, and not try to conform to a perceived standard.


----------



## DerFrosch

AutumnOwl said:


> If judging from the entry in SAOB, _"filet"_ was the older/original form and _"filen"_ a later variant. One reason why _"filen"_ have become the more common form could be that _"fil"_ is short for _"filmjölk/en"_ and when the "_-mjölk_" was dropped people still used the _"-en_" ending in the definite form.


I've also always assumed that "_fil_" was simply short for "_filmjölk_", but it seems that this isn't actually true; according to _Norstedts svenska ordbok_, "_fil_" was first used in 1732, whereas the first recorded usage "_filmjölk_" is from 1741. Nevertheless, it seems likely that the change of gender is due to influence from "_filmjölk_", as you say - but also from the other senses of the word "_fil_", where the "-et" ending never has been used.


AutumnOwl said:


> I wouldn't say that _"filen"_ is the one and only "correct form" today, it's only the more common form used, and I don't think those who use _"filet" _is less educated or haven't got a modern education. (If "_filet_" was the original definite form, then you could say that those who began using _"filen"_ were those who didn't know the correct definite form of "_fil"_). Maybe those who still say "filet" are more in tune with (and perhaps also proud of) their own dialect/the way people use the language from where they come, and not try to conform to a perceived standard.


Well, "correct" is a tricky concept when it comes to languages. It would be absurd to say that "_filet_" is incorrect _in those regions_ where people obviously use it, and have learned it from their parents. But in standard Swedish, in _rikssvenska_, it is, in any case, clearly not neutral. Those who grew up with "_filet_" are of course free to use it outside those regions too, but they should be aware that it will sound strange to many people.


----------



## MattiasNYC

DerFrosch said:


> Those who grew up with "_filet_" are of course free to use it outside those regions too, but they should be aware that it will sound strange to many people.



I think it's worth mentioning though that if they use "filet" outside of those regions they probably bring a lot of other region-specific words and pronunciations with them, and so taken as a whole it might not be all that "strange" in and by itself. It sort of "gets lost" in all of the other deviations from rikssvenska and sounds natural to that speaker, if you know what I mean.

So my objection originally was really within that usage context. A foreigner would sound like a foreigner with poor language skills using "filet", in most cases, because it's simply not the most commonly used way to express the word. A native would sound like a native with a dialect.


----------



## DerFrosch

MattiasNYC said:


> A foreigner would sound like a foreigner with poor language skills using "filet", in most cases, because it's simply not the most commonly used way to express the word. A native would sound like a native with a dialect.



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## cocuyo

I am not quite sure about this. I think I can remember my grandmother, from Vilhelmina, using the -t gender, and she also had some other peculiarities. However she used fil only about the variety sold under trade name fil or filmjölk. The one fermented at home was tätmjölk'n. (Täte is a herb used for the process.)

However in a way, it might reflect the ölen/ölet differences, where the -t gender refers to the substance and the -n gender one serving of the same.


----------

