# Norwegian: skulle bare mangle



## sjiraff

Hello everyone,

I know there is already a thread on the same phrase (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=697577) however I really am struggling to get a consistant idea of what this means exactly.

Here is a headline from a newspaper: "Skulle bare mangle at ikke LOs største forbund stiller krav" - can anyone explain what this means exactly?

My understanding of it was that it might mean something like "you would think at least" or something. Can it be used in several ways?

Thanks for any help!


----------



## Raigeki

I don't speak Norwegian, but I'm a native speaker of Danish which is very similar, so I'll give it a shot in case nobody else replies. Keep in mind that my explanation is only valid for Danish, and if there is a difference between the phrase in Danish and the phrase in Norwegian, I am not aware of it. A native speaker will probably be able to tell you after reading my reply.

"(Det) skulle (da) bare mangle" can mean more than one thing. It can mean something along the lines of "oh, don't you worry about it" when somebody thanks you. To be completely honest, I don't quite understand that grammar myself. It's just a set phrase that doesn't make a lot of sense word-for-word. It's almost like saying: "If you need anything, I'll help you out". More literally, it means "Just go ahead and need something". 

There is also another meaning. This meaning is a more literal usage of the phrase. It's used when a few facts or actions have taken place or been mentioned, and you want to stress that "oh, the only thing we need now is..", "I won't be surprised if.." or "I wonder if (xxx) is going to happen too"
"Det regner, jeg har ondt i foden og min mobil har ingen strøm. *Det skulle da bare mangle* at jeg heller ikke kan finde hjem"
"It's raining, my foot hurts and my phone is out of power. I won't be surprised if I can't find my home either"

Edit: Another way to say this is "Det manglede/mangler da bare".


----------



## sjiraff

Thanks for the explainations Raigeki, I had no idea it could be used like "ikke not å takke for" either.

Your  second examples are kind of what I expected it to mean, I assume when  you say "the only thing we need now" - it's sarcastic? 

I managed  to find the particular example that made me wonder what it means, at  like 24minutes onwards he says "Vi er på femten spørsmål" and she says  "det skulle bare mangle" - which meaning would you say this fits in to?
http://tv.nrk.no/serie/20-spoersmaal-tv/MUHH19000111/20-05-2011#t=24m03s

Thanks


----------



## raumar

I can't help you with the grammar or the origin of "det skulle bare mangle", but I can try to shed light on how it is used. 

"[Det] skulle bare mangle at ikke LOs største forbund stiller krav" means something like "It goes without saying that the largest LO union makes demands", implying "Of course they make demands. If they hadn't made demands, the ledership would have let its members down".

This expression is difficult also for native speakers -- especially the use of "ikke" in sentences such as the one about the LO. This problem is discussed in these links: 

http://tux.aftenposten.no/spraak/spraak?action=question&id=4209

http://www.riksmalsforbundet.no/Spr...gi.aspx?PID=281&M=NewsV2&Action=1&NewsId=1087

The meaning is similar when "Det skulle bare mangle" is used as "Ikke noe å takke for". Here, the expression implies something like this: "Of course I should help you in this kind of situation. If I hadn't helped you, I would have been a really inconsiderate and unreasonable person. No need to thank me for doing the obviously right thing."

I don't think the sarcastic version described by Raigeki is much used in Norway. In this kind of situation, Norwegians would rather say "Nå mangler det bare at ..."

Finally, the line from the TV show (it is 7 minutes onward, not 24). I understand why you had problems - it is not entirely clear to me either. It is said by Trond-Viggo Torgersen, and his form of humour is often quite absurd. Therefore, I don't think you should try too hard to look for any deeper meaning.


----------



## Raigeki

raumar said:


> I don't think the sarcastic version described by Raigeki is much used in Norway. In this kind of situation, Norwegians would rather say "Nå mangler det bare at ..."



You are right. Now that I think about it, the preferred way to say it in Danish is indeed "nu mangler det bare at ..."

As I mentioned earlier, I don't speak Norwegian and I have never studied Norwegian grammar or sentence structuce, so I don't think I'm qualified to answer more specific question. I can only guess, after all


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> I can't help you with the grammar or the origin of "det skulle bare mangle", but I can try to shed light on how it is used.
> 
> "[Det] skulle bare mangle at ikke LOs største forbund stiller krav" means something like "It goes without saying that the largest LO union makes demands", implying "Of course they make demands. If they hadn't made demands, the ledership would have let its members down".
> 
> This expression is difficult also for native speakers -- especially the use of "ikke" in sentences such as the one about the LO. This problem is discussed in these links


 
Thanks, it is a bit confusing with the "ikke" here, so it would sound very wrong without it?



raumar said:


> The meaning is similar when "Det skulle bare mangle" is used as "Ikke noe å takke for". Here, the expression implies something like this: "Of course I should help you in this kind of situation. If I hadn't helped you, I would have been a really inconsiderate and unreasonable person. No need to thank me for doing the obviously right thing."
> 
> I don't think the sarcastic version described by Raigeki is much used in Norway. In this kind of situation, Norwegians would rather say "Nå mangler det bare at ..."
> 
> Finally, the line from the TV show (it is 7 minutes onward, not 24). I understand why you had problems - it is not entirely clear to me either. It is said by Trond-Viggo Torgersen, and his form of humour is often quite absurd. Therefore, I don't think you should try too hard to look for any deeper meaning.



Thanks for these explainations and links here, I think it seemed even more confusing to me because I kept seeing it used in different ways and they sort of conflicted in my mind.

Apologies for late bump!


----------



## raumar

sjiraff said:


> Thanks, it is a bit confusing with the "ikke" here, so it would sound very wrong without it?



Well, it would be wrong, as far as I can see -- even though many native speakers also have problems with the expression. If you remove "ikke" from a sentence, the meaning becomes the opposite. That would not make sense, given the context of the newspaper article.

The key to understand this might be something Tor Guttu wrote in one of the links above: "Det ligger et element av «ikke», av nektelse/motsetning, i uttrykket DET SKULLE BARE MANGLE". In other words, there are two negative expressions -- two "ikke" --  in the sentence "[Det] *skulle bare mangle* at *ikke* LOs største forbund stiller krav". These two negative elements cancel each other out -- as in "LOs største forbund gjør *ikke* jobben sin, hvis de* ikke* stiller krav". But, as Guttu also writes, this double negative makes the sentence difficult to understand. 

That is at least the way I think it is. I hope others can correct me, if I have misunderstood something!


----------



## Batseba

Thumbs up to raumar's explanation. Possible translations: "of course", "it goes without saying", "it should be taken for granted".


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> Well, it would be wrong, as far as I can see -- even though many native speakers also have problems with the expression. If you remove "ikke" from a sentence, the meaning becomes the opposite. That would not make sense, given the context of the newspaper article.
> 
> The key to understand this might be something Tor Guttu wrote in one of the links above: "Det ligger et element av «ikke», av nektelse/motsetning, i uttrykket DET SKULLE BARE MANGLE". In other words, there are two negative expressions -- two "ikke" --  in the sentence "[Det] *skulle bare mangle* at *ikke* LOs største forbund stiller krav". These two negative elements cancel each other out -- as in "LOs største forbund gjør *ikke* jobben sin, hvis de* ikke* stiller krav". But, as Guttu also writes, this double negative makes the sentence difficult to understand.
> 
> That is at least the way I think it is. I hope others can correct me, if I have misunderstood something!



Ahh I think I understand now, but I would have expected it to be worded "Det skulle bare mangle at LOs største forbundt* ikke stiller krav*", or would that word order be wrong?
Thanks!


----------



## raumar

sjiraff said:


> Ahh I think I understand now, but I would have expected it to be worded "Det skulle bare mangle at LOs største forbundt* ikke stiller krav*", or would that word order be wrong?
> Thanks!



No, both word orders are correct. As far as I can see, there is no difference in meaning.


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> No, both word orders are correct. As far as I can see, there is no difference in meaning.



Thanks a lot!

Apologies for late bump


----------

