# Norwegian: nordmann



## Gavril

Is _nordmann _a gender-netural term for "Norwegian person", at least theoretically, or does the -_mann_ ending prevent it from being applied to women?

From what I've read, some people find it strange to say things like _Hun er nordmann_ because the subject is "she", and they prefer instead to replace _nordmann_ with an adejctive (_Hun er norsk_). But is this replacement a matter of taste, or is it required by standard Norwegian grammar?

Thanks


----------



## Ben Jamin

From my experience I can answer that the situation is changing. Many people still avoid to use "nordmann" about a woman, but the linguistic avantgarde, the journalists use it happily. As far as I know there is no grammatical prescription forbidding such a use, but many people have only a feeling of linguistic discomfort while using the word in this way.


----------



## raumar

I agree that this is a matter of taste (or maybe political correctness), not any grammatical rule. But I have a different impression about the direction of change than Ben Jamin - or maybe we just have different time perspectives. 

Traditionally, the suffix "_-mann_" has been understood as gender-neutral, meaning "person". With the rise of the women's movement, since the 1970s, this traditional understanding has been questioned and criticized. Words ending with "_-mann_" have been replaced with alternatives, when such alternatives exist. For example, "_formann_" is not much used today. We use "_leder_" instead. I believe that the same thing has happened in English (chairman - chair). Other "_-mann_" words are still used, for example "_rådmann_" (Chief Municipal Executive). In this case, we have no good alternatives - we could say "_kommunal administrasjonssjef_", but this has not really caught on, for obvious reasons.  

There are no obvious alternatives to "_nordmann_", so this word has not been replaced. Many people have no problem with "_hun er nordmann_", while others will use the adjective instead. 

Having said that, I think most people would use the adjective in the sentence in post #1, regardless of the "_-mann_" problem. I don't have any systematic evidence, but I would usually say "_Hun er dansk_" (She is Danish), rather than "_Hun er danske_" (She is a Dane), even though both are correct.


----------



## tewlwolow

Well, it's all a bit funny if you realise that up in Bergen, they still assign masculine gender to_ kvinne _or_ jente_, as Danes do.

In this particular case, *nordperson or *nordmenneske or *norger/noreger are rather unlikely to catch up...

You can also say "nordbo", but it is dangerously close to nordbu/nordboer/nordbuer, which means a Scandinavian. And it would include the Saami people or Kvenene, which are not Norwegians, but the do live there. Lots of problems.


----------



## Gavril

tewlwolow said:


> You can also say "nordbo", but it is dangerously close to nordbu/nordboer/nordbuer, which means a Scandinavian. And it would include the Saami people or Kvenene, which are not Norwegians, but the do live there. Lots of problems.



They aren't ethnic Norwegians, but they certainly are Norwegians in the sense of being citizens and residents of Norway; at least that is how the term _Norwegian_ is commonly used in English. Is the word _nordmann_ only (or mainly) used in an ethnic sense?


----------



## raumar

Well, "Norwegian" is used in both senses - to describe both ethnicity and citizenship. Sometimes the word is used in a rather undefined way, so it is not clear what it means. This makes the terms "_nordmann_" and "_norsk_" difficult to use in the context of minorities - it is always possible to offend somebody!

In the case of the Sámi, there has been a long history of forced assimilation or "Norwegianization". This is no longer official policy. The Norwegian state has now declared that the Norwegian state was originally founded on the territory of two peoples, the Norwegian people and the Sámi people. But because of this historical background, it is easy to understand that many Sámi resent being called "Norwegian". At least in the Sámi academic and political elite - there are also some Sámi who don't share this view. 

In the case of immigrated minorities - citizens and residents with, for example, Pakistani ethnicity - the situation is different. Many immigrants have experienced exclusion and racism, and they certainly want to be accepted as "Norwegian". Of course, there are exceptions here as well. Some of them don't want to become "Norwegian", and want to avoid that their children become too "Norwegian".


----------



## Ben Jamin

tewlwolow said:


> Well, it's all a bit funny if you realise that up in Bergen, they still assign masculine gender to_ kvinne _or_ jente_, as Danes do.


This is a misunderstanding. You are talking about 'common gender' (felleskjønn) as opposed to 'neuter gender'  (intetkjønn).


----------



## tewlwolow

Ben Jamin said:


> This is a misunderstanding. You are talking about 'common gender' (felleskjønn) as opposed to 'neuter gender'  (intetkjønn).



Yes, theoretically, but both practically and historically it's a masculine declension pattern. Especially when looked not from Danish perspective, but from a Norwegian one, in which the 3-gender system is still most common.


----------



## Ben Jamin

tewlwolow said:


> Yes, theoretically, but both practically and historically it's a masculine declension pattern. Especially when looked not from Danish perspective, but from a Norwegian one, in which the 3-gender system is still most common.


What relevance is there about "practically and historically it's a masculine declension *pattern*" when the common gender is *not* perceived by the speakers as masculine. 



Pozdrawiam

Ben Jamin


----------



## tewlwolow

Ben Jamin said:


> What relevance is there about "practically and historically it's a masculine declension *pattern*" when the common gender is *not* perceived by the speakers as masculine.
> 
> 
> 
> Pozdrawiam
> 
> Ben Jamin



I dare to disagree. It's not perceived as masculine gender only by those who use it holistically. For people using dialects that have three genders, it still would be a masculine noun, because the very notion of two-gender system is unnatural for them. Thus, there exists virtually no reason for them to consider these words as _felleskjønn._

Moreover, you do not a clear division into two spoken versions of the tongue, one with three genders in all possible forms and the other with only two genders. If a person uses_ kvinnen, _but also_ boka, _would you say_ kvinnen_ is _felleskjønn_? If yes, you should also use_ boken,_ and since you don't, it makes little sense. Or you can consider _boka_ as a mistake in this case, but it's even less wise.


----------



## Ben Jamin

tewlwolow said:


> I dare to disagree. It's not perceived as masculine gender only by those who use it holistically. For people using dialects that have three genders, it still would be a masculine noun, because the very notion of two-gender system is unnatural for them. Thus, there exists virtually no reason for them to consider these words as _felleskjønn._
> 
> Moreover, you do not a clear division into two spoken versions of the tongue, one with three genders in all possible forms and the other with only two genders. If a person uses_ kvinnen, _but also_ boka, _would you say_ kvinnen_ is _felleskjønn_? If yes, you should also use_ boken,_ and since you don't, it makes little sense. Or you can consider _boka_ as a mistake in this case, but it's even less wise.



I think that native speakers should resolve this argument, but in my opinion the problem you raised is non existent. I don't think that Norwegians speaking a 3GD (three gender dialect) perceive the word "kvinnen" as masculine, just like an anglophone person does not perceive the word "woman" as neuter.


----------



## tewlwolow

Ben Jamin said:


> anglophone person does not perceive the word "woman" as neuter.



That is because the gender system is non-existent in modern English. I can't see how this argument is relevant.

The general tendency in virtually all languages is to use what is _known_ in place of what is _not known_. Since the English have no gender system, the English speakers would *not* perceive "woman" as having *any* gender; in a similar way, they would associate the _aorist_ tense with no English sentence, because it does not exist in the language. For Norwegians that use _-en_ suffix to form a definite *masculine* noun (as opposed to _-a_ and _-et_), it's most natural to consider every noun possesing this definite suffix as masculine. I can't see why they should, as you point out, refer to a different tongue/dialect/language in their perception. It does not make any sense.

It's just a theoretical discussion, sparked by your protest to my using the word *masculine, *with regard to the common gender. You should acknowledge that I was talking from a perspective of somebody that is acquainted with Norwegian having* three* genders. In this system,_ felleskjønn_ does not exist, hence the omission. If I was considering _bergensk_ as a separate entity, I would use the proper term that you adeptly provided.


----------



## Gavril

Hi,

I appreciate the answers you both gave to the original question, but it seems to me that the posts from #7 onward belong on their own thread.


----------

