# Danish: Modal verbs



## Andreas_Jensen

This is a continuation of the "det skal jo ogsaa til..." disussion. I've taking the liberty of copying the text written by Vejrudsigt: 

_"But if I had to say which aspect of Danish grammar has proven the most frustrating, then it'd be the six modal verbs 'ville/turde/skulle/måtte/kunne/burde'. It's positively maddening given the multiple meanings associated with each one, e.g. I never know whether to use 'kan jeg godt...' or 'må jeg godt...' when I want to say "may I...", I'm uncertain as to whether 'katten skal dræbes' or 'katten vil dræbes' is the preferred rendering of "the cat will be killed" to say nothing of 'katten skal/vil blive dræbt', etc."_

First of all, I know what you mean! When I have to explain it to foreigners I realize how deeply disturbing this subject is!

Contructions with "kan jeg godt..." mostly mean if you are _able_ to do something. Contructions with "maa jeg godt..." mostly mean if you are _allowed_ to do something. When you say "may I" in English, I'd think that in 95% of the cases, in Danish you'd say "maa jeg (godt)...", but exceptions wouldn't surprise me! The more puzzling case is when you say "can I..." in English. Example:

---
Your sister is looking in a magazine and there is a page you want to see. In English you ask: "Can I see?" (I guess you could say "may I see?" too, but isn't it a bit too formal?)

In Danish you say "Maa jeg se?", which means "Will you let me see?"
If you say "Kan jeg se?" it means "Am I able to see?" 
---

With regards to "The cat will be killed", my preferred rendering is "Katten vil blive dræbt". I don't think that "skal blive" is ever a correct construction. For the other two "Katten skal draebes" seems more like "The cat _must_ be killed", and "katten vil draebes" seems like "the cat _wants_ to be killed". But yeah, the differences are often subtle, and you need a very trained (native?) ear, to really get it.

Andreas


----------



## BoTrojan

I would say that the three most vexing things when learning another language are:  1) idioms; 2) prepositions; and 3) modal verbs.  Often, these three obstacles all collide, which makes things really fun.

I agree with everything Andreas has said here.  The one amendment I would venture to make would be around common usage of "*kan*" versus "*maa.*"  I *think* it's become a very similar situation to the one we have in American English:  *can* and *may* definitely mean different things, but the vast majority of people use them interchangeably in common parlance.  

Imagine a scenario in which you're reading the Sunday paper near someone, you read something interesting and say out loud "now, that's interesting."  This piques the other person's interest and he/she says "can I see," or "can I see it?" or some such.  

In my experience (which could very well be different from others'), you're as likely to hear someone say in this situation "*maa jeg se (det)*?" as you are to hear "*kan jeg se (det)*?"  We all know that the grammatically correct thing to say in either language in this scenario is some variation of "*may* I see it."  But you almost never hear it in English.  I further think that the *maa* form of this simple expression is probably more common in Danish than the *may* form in AE.  But my contention would be ... not much.  In other contexts, kan and maa mean very different things and wouldn't be used interchangeably at all.  I can think of some expressions such as "det *maa* du nok sige!" eller "jeg *kan* godt fortaelle dig at busen er forsinket."  Totally different, right?

Anyway, we could go on and on.  It's a great subject.

Thoughts?


----------



## Andreas_Jensen

BoTrojan said:


> I agree with everything Andreas has said here. The one amendment I would venture to make would be around common usage of "*kan*" versus "*maa.*" I *think* it's become a very similar situation to the one we have in American English: *can* and *may* definitely mean different things, but the vast majority of people use them interchangeably in common parlance.
> 
> In my experience (which could very well be different from others'), you're as likely to hear someone say in this situation "*maa jeg se (det)*?" as you are to hear "*kan jeg se (det)*?"


 
If I were reading a newspaper and someone asked me "Kan jeg se?" I would reply (in Danish) "yes, you can, cause your eyes function properly and there is sufficient light and no fog or smoke in this room... But I wont let you look at the article!!!". The guy is asking me if he is able to see in general. In my opinion _kan_ and _maa_ are used quite interchangably in English but not at all to the same extent in Danish, where they mean very different things. I would never accept "kan jeg se?" as a valid translation of "can I see?" in that situation. Most surely your teacher would give you a thick red mark, since it's a common error. If you've heard that being said by Danish people it would disturb me greatly  Maybe in other situations you can use both, but not in this one, and even if you can use both I would say the meanings would be slightly different. Example:

---
_Må jeg køre med jer?_ 
Will you allow me to ride in your car with you? You'd say this more to people you probably don't know so well, for example the parents of your friend. To this you could answer "Ja, det må du gerne, men der er desværre ikke plads"

_Kan jeg køre med jer?_
Is it possible that I can go with you in your car? This is something you'd say to, say, your uncle, who you know doesn't mind if you go with him. He could answer "Nej desværre, bilen er fuld, men du måtte ellers gerne".
---

I hope you understand what I mean. Again, the difference is subtle, but I'd say that it's definitely there.

Andreas


----------



## BoTrojan

I hear you and would 100% defer to you on the extent to which *maa* and *kan* might or might not be used interchangeably in given situations.  What I will tell you is that virtually everything you said also applies to AE.  The sticklers for grammar out there will, to this day, answer "can I" questions that should have been asked "may I" with indignant rants along the lines of the one you suggested in my newspaper example.  Anyone who has learned any English grammar knows full well the difference between may and can.  The grammar is pretty unambiguous:  can? = am I able to; may? = am I allowed to. 

They are still used more or less interchangeably in AE.  Sounds like this is much LESS of a "problem" in Danish.  I can tell you with certainty, however, that I have heard many a native Danish speaker use *kan* instead of *maa* in the ways that I've suggested.  It could be that my sample is just too small.  If I were reading this thread as a beginning Danish speaker, I'd certainly take your word for it over mine.


----------



## Andreas_Jensen

BoTrojan said:


> I hear you and would 100% defer to you on the extent to which *maa* and *kan* might or might not be used interchangeably in given situations. What I will tell you is that virtually everything you said also applies to AE. The sticklers for grammar out there will, to this day, answer "can I" questions that should have been asked "may I" with indignant rants along the lines of the one you suggested in my newspaper example. Anyone who has learned any English grammar knows full well the difference between may and can. The grammar is pretty unambiguous: can? = am I able to; may? = am I allowed to.
> 
> They are still used more or less interchangeably in AE. Sounds like this is much LESS of a "problem" in Danish. I can tell you with certainty, however, that I have heard many a native Danish speaker use *kan* instead of *maa* in the ways that I've suggested. It could be that my sample is just too small. If I were reading this thread as a beginning Danish speaker, I'd certainly take your word for it over mine.


 
Funny, I've always thought that "Can I see" was completely grammatically valid, like in Spanish when you say "Puedo entrar?" or "Puedo verlo?". From now on I'll put up a disapproving face whenever I hear that. 

I don't think it's a problem in Danish, since people in general, if they think it over a bit, understand the subtleties between the two, even if they are interchanged.

About the example you gave "maa jeg se?" will always be the correct one. BUT, if you twist it a bit and say "Maa jeg se _med_?" then it would also be possible to say "Kan jeg se med?", although there would still be this minute difference as in the example with the cars, although no-one probably thinks about this when they say it. So, in that way, both sentences are grammatically valid, as opposed to the "can I see?" in English. Maybe this is what you've heard? But actually, it puzzled me a bit that you think of "Kan jeg se?" as correct, since I know quite well, that you're not some kind of newbie and that you have your Danish nailed down pretty thoroughly!


----------



## BoTrojan

Using *can* when you mean *may* is every ounce as grammatically wrong in English as it is in Danish.  In the example I gave, there is one and only one correct way to pose the question, given the context:  "*may I see?*"  But as is so often the case, usage and grammar don't coincide.  It is very much akin to answering the question "*who is there?*" with the response:  "*it's me!*"  Every third grader knows that, grammatically, the correct answer in "it's I."  It is a simple matter of subject versus object pronouns and this sentence calls for the subject pronoun.  It's just that nobody, and I mean *nobody* nowadays, says that in American English, or if you do, you're sarcastically mimmicking someone with a British accent.

In short, I'm not saying the "*kan jeg___*" is correct when you're actually asking for permission, but rather that I've heard it used to mean "*maa jeg___*," however incorrect that might be grammatically. 

My Danish family was heavily into American English ... it may well be that they transferred the much more common American English practice of mixing up the two into their Danish parlance.  It's just a theory.


----------



## Sepia

BoTrojan said:


> Using *can* when you mean *may* is every ounce as grammatically wrong in English as it is in Danish.  In the example I gave, there is one and only one correct way to pose the question, given the context:  "*may I see?*"  But as is so often the case, usage and grammar don't coincide.  It is very much akin to answering the question "*who is there?*" with the response:  "*it's me!*"  Every third grader knows that, grammatically, the correct answer in "it's I."  It is a simple matter of subject versus object pronouns and this sentence calls for the subject pronoun.  It's just that nobody, and I mean *nobody* nowadays, says that in American English, or if you do, you're sarcastically mimmicking someone with a British accent.
> 
> In short, I'm not saying the "*kan jeg___*" is correct when you're actually asking for permission, but rather that I've heard it used to mean "*maa jeg___*," however incorrect that might be grammatically.
> 
> My Danish family was heavily into American English ... it may well be that they transferred the much more common American English practice of mixing up the two into their Danish parlance.  It's just a theory.



I'd say, it is basically true what you say about "kan" og "maa", especially your comparison to "can" and "may". However, what complicates the matter is that "maa" not only covers "may" but also "must"!

Danes tend to mix English practice into their language. But don't worry too much - they do it to such an extent that many of these influences become widely accepted, colloquial Danish. I could pin-point lots of things that you could not say 20 years ago, which now is considered "Danish".

That would be a much more serious problem if you were learning German.


----------



## Andreas_Jensen

Okay, just to have it spelled out in neon... If you say "kan jeg se?" and end your sentence there, when wanting to look at something someone else is looking at, people will see it as completely non-Danish. It is my firm belief, that it is wrong both grammatically and socially and coloquially (!?) i.e. you can never, ever say it!!! 

I would really love an example where "maa" and "kan" are truly interchanged in Danish.

And yes, "maa" kan also mean "must", but nowadays "skal" is used more.


----------



## BoTrojan

I, for one, defer completely to Andreas on this one.  Especially given the emphatic and enthusiastic nature of his contention.

Case closed.  Now on to the OTHER modal verbs, eh?


----------



## Sepia

Andreas_Jensen said:


> ...
> 
> And yes, "maa" kan also mean "must", but nowadays "skal" is used more.




I was actually waiting for you to say that all along. But the two are not always interchangable. An example -

Mother-in-law is ringing the doorbell, you know who it is and are hiding.

She says: But they MUST be there; there is a light on.

In Danish: Jamen, de maa da vaere der; lyset er taendt.

Here are "maa" og "skal" not interchangable.


----------



## Andreas_Jensen

Sepia said:


> I was actually waiting for you to say that all along. But the two are not always interchangable. An example -
> 
> Mother-in-law is ringing the doorbell, you know who it is and are hiding.
> 
> She says: But they MUST be there; there is a light on.
> 
> In Danish: Jamen, de maa da vaere der; lyset er taendt.
> 
> Here are "maa" og "skal" not interchangable.


 
Yeah, I guess that they aren't always interchangable, and in the example you mention surely "maa" would be uttered by most mother-in-laws . 

But would you say that "Jamen, de skal da vaere der; lyset er taendt" is completely off-course? I can easily imagine that being said in the odd case, and I wouldn't give it nearly as much thought as in the "kan jeg se?"-case.


----------



## BoTrojan

"Skal" in the context you paint, Andreas, could certainly heard but I'd still have to believe that most people would say "maa."  The way my ear has been trained, if I were to hear "*de skal vaere der*" in this context, I would understand it as "*de er noed til at vaere der*" when what the speaker really wants to express, roughly, is "*det lader bestemt som om de er der fordi lyset er taendt*"

Bottom line:  The BEST translation for "*they must be there because the light is on* ..." would have to be "*de maa vaere der fordi lyset er taendt*."


----------



## Andreas_Jensen

BoTrojan said:


> "Skal" in the context you paint, Andreas, could certainly heard but I'd still have to believe that most people would say "maa." The way my ear has been trained, if I were to hear "*de skal vaere der*" in this context, I would understand it as "*de er noedt til at vaere der*" when what the speaker really wants to express, roughly, is "*det lader bestemt til at de er der for lyset er taendt*"
> 
> Bottom line: The BEST translation for "*they must be there because the light is on* ..." would have to be "*de maa vaere der for lyset er taendt*."


 
I agree 100% with what you say!  Hope you understand and agree with my corrections.


----------



## BoTrojan

Absolutely.  You're right of course.  Thanks, correct me at will.


----------



## Sepia

Andreas_Jensen said:


> Yeah, I guess that they aren't always interchangable, and in the example you mention surely "maa" would be uttered by most mother-in-laws .
> 
> But would you say that "Jamen, de skal da vaere der; lyset er taendt" is completely off-course? I can easily imagine that being said in the odd case, and I wouldn't give it nearly as much thought as in the "kan jeg se?"-case.



I see that differently - I'd never use "skal" in that connection because it expresses an opinion about how things ought to be - wheras "maa" (in this case) only indicates that it is a conclusion based upon what I consider obvious.


----------



## Andreas_Jensen

Sepia said:


> I see that differently - I'd never use "skal" in that connection because it expresses an opinion about how things ought to be - wheras "maa" (in this case) only indicates that it is a conclusion based upon what I consider obvious.


 
I agree completely that "maa" is the way to go. But if you want to analyze the sentence, though, you could say that "skal" refers to the general fact that when the light is on, someone is very likely to be home, i.e. they have to be home, because the light is on. And it that case it could mean the same as "maa"... This is turning quite academic


----------



## frugihoyi

Andreas_Jensen said:


> If you say "kan jeg se?" and end your sentence there, when wanting to look at something someone else is looking at, people will see it as completely non-Danish. It is my firm belief, that it is wrong both grammatically and socially and coloquially (!?) i.e. you can never, ever say it!!!


Can you (or someone) explain why that is? I understand the difference between "kan" and må." But was this a reference to that or to the fact that the sentence "ended there"? Should it have been "Kan/må jeg se *det*"?




Sepia said:


> I was actually waiting for you to say that all along. But the two are not always interchangable. An example -
> 
> Mother-in-law is ringing the doorbell, you know who it is and are hiding.
> 
> She says: But they MUST be there; there is a light on.
> 
> In Danish: Jamen, de maa da vaere der; lyset er taendt.
> 
> Here are "maa" og "skal" not interchangable.


It seems to me that "must" also has two slightly different meanings in English. For example: 


Hmm, all the shops are closed today! It must be a holiday.
You must come to my birthday party.

In the first example, the meaning seems to be that it is _probably _a holiday.
In the second example, the speaker is pretty much saying "you have no choice."

It might be argued that "must" could be replaced with "have/has to" in both examples, but in the first I think the meaning would change slightly: using "has to" would suggest more certainty than "must" (it would also sound a bit strange in most situations, but that's beside the point). It also seems to me that the same applies to Danish, although in that case I can't find another word to use instead of må.


----------



## frugihoyi

And what if I'm at 711, I see that they have pølsehorn and I'd like to have one?

*"Kan jeg få et pølsehorn?" - *I think this is most common, even though it's pretty obvious that I have the ability to have the pølsehorn since I have money.
*"Må jeg få et pølsehorn?" *This sounds completely strange, doesn't it? I don't think anyone would ever say this. But this should be the correct formulation, right?

Perhaps in certain situations "må" is being replaced by "kan" just like in American English, where you would basically NEVER use the gramatically correct "må."


----------



## Ben Jamin

BoTrojan said:


> I would say that the three most vexing things when learning another language are:  1) idioms; 2) prepositions; and 3) modal verbs.  Often, these three obstacles all collide, which makes things really fun.



Number three applies actually only to Germanic languages. It is much less difficult in other langauge families that don't use modals to express future.
Even more frustrating is when a speaker of one Germanic language is learning another Germanic language, expecting a paralellity, which is not there, and even more, shen the grammatical norm differs from the actual usage.

In Norwegian, which is by some Danes regarded as a dialect of Common Scandinavian, *må *means only "must"*, and people often ask "kan jeg se?" (=får jeg lov å se på?). 

*This leads to frequent misunderstandings between Danes and Norwegians. A prominent Norwegian politician was married as a consequence of  such a misunderstanding.


----------

