# Swedish: annorlunda vs. olik



## AnnieTC

<< Topic: annorlunda vs. olik >>

what is the subtle difference?


----------



## Tjahzi

_Annorlunda _is used in a general sense while _olik_ is used comparatively. In general, that is.


----------



## Jakobo3

They both mean different, but they can't be used interchangeably. For example "this is different" is "detta är annorlunda", and "this is two different houses" is "Detta är två olika hus". I'm not sure but I think annorlunda is used when the comparison is implied and olika when a number of objects are compared.


----------



## MattiasNYC

I would add to what Jakobo3 said that if the two houses are compared to each other "olika" is suitable, but if the two houses are compared to other houses in the neighborhood for example, "annorlunda" would sound more appropriate: 

"Detta är två annorlunda hus." i.e. they have some features that set them apart from the rest
"Detta är två olika hus" i.e. they are different from each other

Would you guys agree?


----------



## AnnieTC

MattiasNYC said:


> I would add to what Jakobo3 said that if the two houses are compared to each other "olika" is suitable, but if the two houses are compared to other houses in the neighborhood for example, "annorlunda" would sound more appropriate:
> 
> "Detta är två annorlunda hus." i.e. they have some features that set them apart from the rest
> "Detta är två olika hus" i.e. they are different from each other



So you mean olik is an "internal differences", while "annorlunda" is an external difference? 
I also encountered two sentences:
Nobel hade cirka 90 fabriker i 20 olika länder (all those different countries within 20)
Nobel ville att man skulle dela ut ett stort pris in hans namn till olika forskare varje år (all those researchers, but they research in different areas)

In this case I guess olik means a bit like "respective" in English, right?


----------



## Lugubert

AnnieTC said:


> Nobel hade cirka 90 fabriker i 20 olika länder (all those different countries within 20)
> Nobel ville att man skulle dela ut ett stort pris in hans namn till olika forskare varje år (all those researchers, but they research in different areas)
> 
> In this case I guess olik means a bit like "respective" in English, right?


For the first sentence, I would have written just "Nobel hade cirka 90 fabriker i 20 länder". If you say "20 countries", it's (I hope) understood that you don't count a country twice.

In the second case, I can force myself to see the "olika" rather as "assorted". As is, my immediate interpretation is that no one should get the prize twice.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Annie,

I agree with both Lugubert and Jakobo. 

In the Nobel sentences you used the first one indeed seems to be redundant like Lugubert said. Two countries are different countries by definition. And in the second sentence I again agree that it probably means that no one scientist should receive the award twice in one year. And in both cases we're comparing a number of _specific_ objects with each other. 

I think Jakobo would agree that if there was something special about the countries in which Nobel had factories, for example that they all were governed by female presidents, had no military forces, and had no poverty, _then_ you could actually have written "Nobel hade cirka 90 fabriker i 20 annorlunda länder". That would mean that even though the 20 countries were different from each other, the 20 were all different from all other countries. And as Jakobo said that was implied (in that sentence, and then likely to be explained later).


----------



## AnnieTC

Thank you all! I also think the olika in first sentences seems redundant and confusing, but it was written in my textbook! If they want to indicate that if Professor A is nominated for Nobel in both chemistry and economics, he would finally get one prize only, either in chemistry or in economics, then adding an olika makes sense here.


----------



## Lugubert

AnnieTC said:


> Thank you all! I also think the olika in first sentences seems redundant and confusing, but it was written in my textbook! If they want to indicate that if Professor A is nominated for Nobel in both chemistry and economics, he would finally get one prize only, either in chemistry or in economics, then adding an olika makes sense here.


But, as we know, that's not the interpretation in practice: Marie Curie, who, among many firsts in her life, was the first woman to be awarded a Nobel Prize (Physics, 1903), also received the Prize for Chemistry, in 1911. So far, she's the only woman who bagged two of them. There's one more person who has collected prizes in two categories (två _olika _kategorier): Linus Pauling. (Frederick Sanger got two chemistry prizes.)


----------



## AnnieTC

Oh so that means .... within the same year, one should get one Nobel prize, right?


----------



## Jakobo3

This is getting off topic but there is nothing in the Alfred Nobel will about not giving the same person the Nobel prize several times or indeed several prizes the same year. How "Nobel ville att man skulle dela ut ett stort pris in hans namn till olika forskare varje år" is to be understood is therefore anybody's guess. I agree with the above that olika seems redundant in the sentence.


----------

