# Norwegian: difference between phrases



## sjiraff

Hei alle sammen, håper alle har det bra siden jeg ikke har fått mulighet til å skjekke forumet på en god stund grunnet abulansearbeider-opplæring 

I feel kind of silly for asking this but I didn't know how to word it for the title but,

In English when we say "it broke" it can mean the same as "it got broken" - is this always the same as in Norwegian? I'm wondering if I said "brødristeren brøt" would the listener be anticipating that I would say _what_ it broke, "brødristeren brøt noe" , or should I always say "brødristeren ble brutt"?

I'm wondering since there must be a term for this kind of verb usage, where something is implying it was done TO the object, without saying explicitly "it became *such a state". It burned, it broke, it sank etc, but where do you draw the line between saying something has it done TO it, or it does it of its self?

Thanks!


----------



## vestfoldlilja

Hei hei 

There is no way to say something a kin to _it broke _in Norwegian and have it mean _it got broken_, and I don’t really see how either burned or sank can be used in this manner as there will always be a cause for the burning or sinking, a house doesn’t just set fire on itself and a ship doesn’t sink just because. 

We don’t use either _brøt or brutt _in the context you mention here. The only word that works in this context in Norwegian is _ødelagt_. *Brødristeren er ødelagt* is the correct way of saying it. You can of course specifiy that it was ødelagt by someone: hun ødela brødristeren or brødristeren ble ødelagt da han satt fast en kniv i den. If it just broke on its own we will often specify why still, like age or it just gave out and such, but it is possible to just say: den er ødelagt and we often also use den funker ikke (it doesn’t work). 

_Brødristeren brøt_ means that the toaster did the _breaking_ and _brødristeren brøt noe_ means that toaster _broke something_, and neither makes any sense. Examples where brøt and brutt are used: De brøt seg inn i bygningen – they broke into the building, de har begge brutt loven – they have both broken the law, hun brøt løftet sitt - she broke her promise, tauet er brutt – the rope is broken.


----------



## myšlenka

Hi,
the correct term is _ergative verbs_ and you find them in many languages, but there is a lot of variation. Many of those you find in English correspond to reflexive or passive (or even middle?) constructions in Norwegian. Alternation of the verb stem vowel is also possible so all in all, these verbs are probably less numerous in Norwegian. The verb _bryte_ is not of one them (as mentioned by vestfoldlilja).


----------



## sjiraff

vestfoldlilja said:


> Hei hei
> 
> There is no way to say something a kin to _it broke _in Norwegian and have it mean _it got broken_,  and I don’t really see how either burned or sank can be used in this  manner as there will always be a cause for the burning or sinking, a  house doesn’t just set fire on itself and a ship doesn’t sink just  because.
> 
> We don’t use either _brøt or brutt _in the context you mention here. The only word that works in this context in Norwegian is _ødelagt_. *Brødristeren er ødelagt*  is the correct way of saying it. You can of course specifiy that it was  ødelagt by someone: hun ødela brødristeren or brødristeren ble ødelagt  da han satt fast en kniv i den. If it just broke on its own we will  often specify why still, like age or it just gave out and such, but it  is possible to just say: den er ødelagt and we often also use den funker  ikke (it doesn’t work).
> 
> _Brødristeren brøt_ means that the toaster did the _breaking_ and _brødristeren brøt noe_ means that toaster _broke something_,  and neither makes any sense. Examples where brøt and brutt are used: De  brøt seg inn i bygningen – they broke into the building, de har begge  brutt loven – they have both broken the law, hun brøt løftet sitt - she  broke her promise, tauet er brutt – the rope is broken.



Ohh I see, I had seen things like as you say, "å bryte seg in" or  "bryte et løfte" - now you mention it I have seen ødelegge used  differently, but I wasn't sure of its potency (like in English 'destroy'  is a lot stronger than just 'break'). Would you ever say, å bryte noe i  to, or should I just say "å knekke noe i to" in that case? (that's what  I would've said anyway). Or maybe if he only damaged it a little bit you could say, "noen skadet brødristeren", or "sprekket"?

As for the other examples I guess I  meant how you can say "the ship sank." or "the ship got sunk" but also  "the ship sank another ship". 




myšlenka said:


> Hi,
> the correct term is _ergative verbs_ and you find them in many languages, but there is a lot of variation. Many of those you find in English correspond to reflexive or passive (or even middle?) constructions in Norwegian. Alternation of the verb stem vowel is also possible so all in all, these verbs are probably less numerous in Norwegian. The verb _bryte_ is not of one them (as mentioned by vestfoldlilja).



Ah I see, it's interesting since now when I think about it in English we can say "it broke" but not "it destroyed" (meaning it got/became destroyed somehow). And I think you're right about them corresponding to reflexive things, like how we can say "I got dressed" but in Norwegian you would say "jeg kledde på meg" and not "jeg ble kledd" or something. I'm not sure what a middle construction is though?

Very interesting, thanks guys!


----------



## raumar

The word "break" can be translated in many ways, depending on the context -- and the alternative verbs behaves differently.

As Vestfoldlilja explained, this is what we say when the toaster is broken: 
Jeg ødela brødristeren 
Brødristeren ødela 

By the way, an alternative to "_Brødristeren er ødelagt_" is "_Brødristeren har/er gått i stykker_"

But if a pencil (or your arm) is broken, you can use both versions:
Jeg brakk blyanten 
Blyanten brakk 

What if you broke the mirror?
Jeg knuste speilet 
Speilet knuste 
Traditionally, "_Speilet knuste_" has been considered incorrect. But today, many people use it. Especially in the younger generation, but also among the not so young (like myself). 

What if the mirror just got a crack in it? 
Jeg sprakk speilet 
Speilet sprakk 
Here you have the opposite pattern of the brødrister case. 

Then, let us move on to your other examples, sink and burn. Both of these are _parverb_: a pair of verbs, where one takes an object and the other doesn't (transitive vs intransitive), and the inflection is different. See http://www.ordnett.no/språkverktøy/språkvett.parverb

Burn: å brenne - brenner - brente - har brent; å brenne - brenner - brant - har brunnet.
Sink: å senke - senker - senket - har senket; å synke - synker - sank - har sunket.

They are used in this way: 
Jeg brente brevet.
Brevet brant.
Jeg senket båten.
Båten sank. 

And, yes, this is difficult also for native speakers!


----------



## vestfoldlilja

_Å bryte noe i to _can be used, but _knekke_ is more common, the only example I can come up with with bryte that is commonly used is *å bryte av en bit (av noe, som brød, sjokolade) – to break off a bit (of something, like bread, chocolate).* We wouldn’t use skadet to describe broken things; we use that word to denote an injury in humans and animals. 

More examples: Greina knakk  - the branch broke, hvis det blir for tungt vil benken knekke – if it gets too heavy the bench will break. Han ble skadet i bilulykken – he got injured/hurt in the car accident, hun skadet beinet da hun falt på isen – she injured/hurt her foot when she fell on the ice. Ledningen har en stor rift i seg og er ødelagt – the cord has a big tear and is ruined, den er sprukket (note: not _sprekket_) og fungerer ikke – it is torn and doesn’t work/function. Blomsterpotta er knust – the flowerpot is broken. 

I don’t think we would say _the ship sank another ship_ like that in Norwegian, we would mention the collision (the cause), and often also the cause of the collision, and then say that one or both ships sank or have the cause follow the statement about the sinking. In the other cases we would say: skipet sank (the ship sank) and skipet ble senket (the ship got sunk), huset brant ned (the house burned down), boka ble brent (the book got burned).


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> The word "break" can be translated in many ways, depending on the context -- and the alternative verbs behaves differently.
> 
> As Vestfoldlilja explained, this is what we say when the toaster is broken:
> Jeg ødela brødristeren
> Brødristeren ødela
> 
> By the way, an alternative to "Brødristeren er ødelagt" is "Brødristeren har/er gått i stykker"
> 
> But if a pencil (or your arm) is broken, you can use both versions:
> Jeg brakk blyanten
> Blyanten brakk
> 
> What if you broke the mirror?
> Jeg knuste speilet
> Speilet knuste
> Traditionally, "Speilet knuste" has been considered incorrect. But today, many people use it. Especially in the younger generation, but also among the not so young (like myself).


Now this I didn't know, especially interesting how "blyanten brakk" is like English with broke.



raumar said:


> What if the mirror just got a crack in it?
> Jeg sprakk speilet
> Speilet sprakk
> Here you have the opposite pattern of the brødrister case.


Hmm, so you can't say "I cracked" something? Could you say jeg laget en sprekk, or fikk sprukket speilet? (Although if the last one makes sense I think it's getting in to another meaning than just "i cracked the mirror by mistake!". I always imagine "knuste" was more shattered like "i stykker" or totally broke it, but maybe it can mean "cracked" too if you don't say "jeg sprakk noe"?




raumar said:


> Burn: å brenne - brenner - brente - har brent; å brenne - brenner - brant - har brunnet.
> Sink: å senke - senker - senket - har senket; å synke - synker - sank - har sunket.
> 
> They are used in this way:
> Jeg brente brevet.
> Brevet brant.
> Jeg senket båten.
> Båten sank.



Well thank God I finally found this out! I always was totally unsure of when to say senke or synke. So you would say, "Bygget brant hele natten" and "han brent ting hele natten" if I've understood right?
But now you mention it with senke/synke, it makes sense since people say "Senk farten!" and not "synk"

That ordnett website is really good, I also had no idea you could say "de sprengte bomben" like that. Thanks Raumar!




vestfoldlilja said:


> Å bryte noe i to can be used, but knekke is more common, the only example I can come up with with bryte that is commonly used is å bryte av en bit (av noe, som brød, sjokolade) – to break off a bit (of something, like bread, chocolate). We wouldn’t use skadet to describe broken things; we use that word to denote an injury in humans and animals.


It seems "bryte" is more like, to break a "connection" in something or end it's contiguity, which would make sense in a word like "en bryter" (as in lysbrytere) too




vestfoldlilja said:


> I don’t think we would say the ship sank another ship like that in Norwegian, we would mention the collision (the cause), and often also the cause of the collision, and then say that one or both ships sank or have the cause follow the statement about the sinking. In the other cases we would say: skipet sank (the ship sank) and skipet ble senket (the ship got sunk), huset brant ned (the house burned down), boka ble brent (the book got burned).



So "skipet ble senket av en fiendtlig ubåt" sounds ok but you woulnd't say, "ubåten senket et skip"? From what I also understood from Raumar "båten sank" would mean like "den sank av seg selv" more (or at least without mentioning what cuased it)

Thanks for the replies guys!


----------



## raumar

sjiraff said:


> Hmm, so you can't say "I cracked" something? Could you say jeg laget en sprekk, or fikk sprukket speilet? (Although if the last one makes sense I think it's getting in to another meaning than just "i cracked the mirror by mistake!".



Good question, I am not really sure. Your first option sounds like you made the crack deliberately, and the second does not sound quite right. You may say something like "Jeg kom til å lage en sprekk i speilet", but usually you would just say "Speilet sprakk" or "Det ble en sprekk i speilet" - unless you need to point out who did it. 



sjiraff said:


> I always imagine "knuste" was more shattered like "i stykker" or totally broke it, but maybe it can mean "cracked" too if you don't say "jeg sprakk noe"?



"Knuse" does not necessarily mean "shatter". If, for example, a burglar makes a hole in a window -- more than just a crack, but not shattering the whole vindow --  to reach the handle on the inside and open the window, we could say "Innbruddstyven knuste vinduet".



sjiraff said:


> So you would say, "Bygget brant hele natten" and "han brent ting hele natten" if I've understood right?



Almost! Han brente ting.



sjiraff said:


> It seems "bryte" is more like, to break a "connection" in something or end it's contiguity, which would make sense in a word like "en bryter" (as in lysbrytere) too



That's right! For example, "Telefonsamtalen ble brutt".



sjiraff said:


> So "skipet ble senket av en fiendtlig ubåt" sounds ok but you woulnd't say, "ubåten senket et skip"?



Well, you can say "ubåten senket et skip" when it is done deliberately, for example in a war. I think Vestfoldlilja referred to the case where a ship sinks as a result of an accident; a collision between ships. In that case, I agree that we wouldn't use "senke". 



sjiraff said:


> From what I also understood from Raumar "båten sank" would mean like "den sank av seg selv" more (or at least without mentioning what cuased it)



No, not necessarily. You could say: "Skipet ble truffet av en torpedo, og sank i løpet av fem minutter".


----------



## NorwegianNYC

The difference between transitive and intransitive verbs is eroding in Norwegian - as it is in English. Many dialects have no clear distinction between e.g. (pret.) 'brente' and 'brant', and 'hengte' and 'hang'. This is a natural development akin to the erosion of the irregular verbs


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> Well, you can say "ubåten senket et skip" when it  is done deliberately, for example in a war. I think Vestfoldlilja  referred to the case where a ship sinks as a result of an accident; a  collision between ships. In that case, I agree that we wouldn't use  "senke".
> 
> You could say: "Skipet ble truffet av en torpedo, og sank i løpet av fem minutter".



Ah  yes, that's a good way of saying it and sounds pretty clear too. But  what you said about the verb "knuse" seems to confirm what I had picked  up from it over time, that it's sort of unique from the seperate English  words we have of "shatter" and "smash",  but as mentioned in this  thread with Norwegian you can also use "gikk i stykker" or other  descriptions to convey it shattered in to "glasskår" and stuff.




NorwegianNYC said:


> The difference between transitive and intransitive verbs is eroding in Norwegian - as it is in English. Many dialects have no clear distinction between e.g. (pret.) 'brente' and 'brant', and 'hengte' and 'hang'. This is a natural development akin to the erosion of the irregular verbs



Is this similar to things like "svei" and "svidde", or "knyttet" and "knøt"? I sometimes find variations as you say, like the past of "å lekke" being "lakk"!


Thanks!


----------



## NorwegianNYC

sjiraff said:


> Is this similar to things like "svei" and "svidde", or "knyttet" and "knøt"? I sometimes find variations as you say, like the past of "å lekke" being "lakk"!Thanks!



The same tendency is seen in both Norwegian and English. The erosion of the transitive/intransitive pairs are obvious. In English, the difference between preterite 'hung' and 'hanged' is almost of academic significance by now, and many people confuse 'lie' and 'lay. The phrase 'go lie down on the bed' is often heard, although it is supposed to be 'go lay down on the bed'. In my estimate, the difference will not survive for more than a couple of generations.

That being said, it is increasingly difficult to tell the difference in Norwegian too. The pair 'svei' and 'svidde' is originally an example of transitive and intransitive, but has been relegated to one word with dialectal variance. There is still difference between 'knyttet' and 'knøt', but it is rapidly disappearing, or being transformed into preterite variants (like 'dived' and 'dove', and 'sneaked' and 'snuck'). In the case of 'lekket' and 'lakk', the difference is all but gone.

No one really knows why this process is going on, but it seems (in all Germanic languages) that once the process gets on its way, there is no stopping it! In English it is pretty much down to three pairs by now - lay/lie, rise/raise and sit/set. A few more are preserved in Norwegian, but given the rate that irregular preterites are disappearing in Norwegian (much faster than in English), it is probably a matter of time before the transitive/intransitive split is a matter of fixed expression.


----------



## sjiraff

NorwegianNYC said:


> The same tendency is seen in both Norwegian  and English. The erosion of the transitive/intransitive pairs are  obvious. In English, the difference between preterite 'hung' and  'hanged' is almost of academic significance by now, and many people  confuse 'lie' and 'lay. The phrase 'go lie down on the bed' is often  heard, although it is supposed to be 'go lay down on the bed'. In my  estimate, the difference will not survive for more than a couple of  generations.



Hmm are you sure? I think that's an American thing, in the UK to  "lay" something would be like laying asphalt on a road or gently putting  something down accross a surface,  here everyone says "lie down", and  "lay" being the past tense of "lie".





NorwegianNYC said:


> No one really knows why this process is going on, but it seems (in all  Germanic languages) that once the process gets on its way, there is no  stopping it! In English it is pretty much down to three pairs by now -  lay/lie, rise/raise and sit/set. A few more are preserved in Norwegian,  but given the rate that irregular preterites are disappearing in  Norwegian (much faster than in English), it is probably a matter of time  before the transitive/intransitive split is a matter of fixed  expression.



It's quite sad I think, I know languages have influences  from lots of places but I think a lot of languages are running out of  time until they become quasi-english mixes or redundant all together. It  would be interesting to know if this happens in Icelandic and to what  extent.


----------



## vestfoldlilja

sjiraff said:


> It seems "bryte" is more like, to break a "connection" in something or end it's contiguity, which would make sense in a word like "en bryter" (as in lysbrytere)
> 
> 
> So "skipet ble senket av en fiendtlig ubåt" sounds ok but you woulnd't say, "ubåten senket et skip"? From what I also understood from Raumar "båten sank" would mean like "den sank av seg selv" more (or at least without mentioning what cuased it)





raumar said:


> Well, you can say "ubåten senket et skip" when it is done deliberately, for example in a war. I think Vestfoldlilja referred to the case where a ship sinks as a result of an accident; a collision between ships. In that case, I agree that we wouldn't use "senke".
> 
> 
> No, not necessarily. You could say: "Skipet ble truffet av en torpedo, og sank i løpet av fem minutter".



Yes, your take on _bryte_ is very correct! 

In regards to _ubåt_; the sentence: _ubåten senket et skip _have an implicit meaning that the submarine fired off torpedoes and that it was the effect of these that actually sank the ship. The sentence does not invoke the image of a submarine ramming into a ship or accidently crashing into it. It’s all about context and in which context the word ubåt is usually used. That said there’s nothing wrong with the sentence: _skipet ble senket av en fiendtlig ubåt_, but it is more common to hear mention of _et fiendtlig skip_. Of course if is a very specific setting that is being reported on, like a war/conflict then a sentence like: det (en nasjonalstat) skipet sank skipet til (en annen nasjonalstat), but still it is more common in Norwegian to actually talk about the cause (weapons) to a sinking and not just the vessels that carried them or the countries that fired them. 

Båten sank without any more added to it just means the boat sank. 

And in regards to mirros, I personally wouldn’t describe a mirror breaking in anyway with the word _sprakk_. I would use the words: _ripe_ if it got a crack and _knuse_ if it shattered. Sprekk is a word that denotes a building pressure that eventually releases, like a balloon shattering if it isn’t closed off in time or an egg cracking in boiling water.


----------



## sjiraff

vestfoldlilja said:


> Yes, your take on _bryte_ is very correct!
> 
> In regards to _ubåt_; the sentence: _ubåten senket et skip _have an implicit meaning that the submarine fired off torpedoes and that it was the effect of these that actually sank the ship. The sentence does not invoke the image of a submarine ramming into a ship or accidently crashing into it. It’s all about context and in which context the word ubåt is usually used. That said there’s nothing wrong with the sentence: _skipet ble senket av en fiendtlig ubåt_, but it is more common to hear mention of _et fiendtlig skip_. Of course if is a very specific setting that is being reported on, like a war/conflict then a sentence like: det (en nasjonalstat) skipet sank skipet til (en annen nasjonalstat), but still it is more common in Norwegian to actually talk about the cause (weapons) to a sinking and not just the vessels that carried them or the countries that fired them.
> 
> Båten sank without any more added to it just means the boat sank.
> 
> And in regards to mirros, I personally wouldn’t describe a mirror breaking in anyway with the word _sprakk_. I would use the words: _ripe_ if it got a crack and _knuse_ if it shattered. Sprekk is a word that denotes a building pressure that eventually releases, like a balloon shattering if it isn’t closed off in time or an egg cracking in boiling water.



Ah yes of course, you say en balong sprakk! But that makes me wonder, do you still say "det er en sprekk i speilet"? If there is a crack in it? Or maybe, could you say et hakk?


----------



## raumar

Good point, Vestfoldlilja -  we should remember that "sprekke" also (or mainly) means "burst". I still think that I could say "Speilet sprakk", if the glass cracked because it was put under pressure (for example, if something heavy was stored on top of it). But when I think of it, I might rather say "Speilet fikk en sprekk".



sjiraff said:


> But that makes me wonder, do you still say "det er en sprekk i speilet"? If there is a crack in it? Or maybe, could you say et hakk?



Personally, yes. I think would us_e ripe _if there was a scratch in the surface, _sprekk_ if there was one single crack that went through the glass, and some expression with _knuse/knust_ if the damage was more serious than that. _Et hakk _is usually deeper and shorter than _en ripe/sprekk._


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> Good point, Vestfoldlilja -  we should remember that "sprekke" also (or mainly) means "burst". I still think that I could say "Speilet sprakk", if the glass cracked because it was put under pressure (for example, if something heavy was stored on top of it). But when I think of it, I might rather say "Speilet fikk en sprekk".
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, yes. I think would us_e ripe _if there was a scratch in the surface, _sprekk_ if there was one single crack that went through the glass, and some expression with _knuse/knust_ if the damage was more serious than that. _Et hakk _is usually deeper and shorter than _en ripe/sprekk._



Ah yes, I think hakk is more like "chip", I've only really heard it about wood or tables.

Thanks for the replies though everyone, it's been really helpful to be honest especially now that "sprekke" makes far more sense now, as to why you can't just say "jeg sprakk noe" as you guys explained with the balloon, it's more something that happens _to _something. You can't really learn these things from looking at simple direct translations. And now I know what an ergative verb is (thanks Myšlenka)


----------



## raumar

I'm sorry to bring in some confusion, now that you thought you understood it! But I might actually say "jeg sprakk ballongen" (if I punctured it deliberately), even though I wouldn't say "jeg sprakk speilet". I suppose this just proves NorwegianNYC's point: these distinctions are eroding.


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> I'm sorry to bring in some confusion, now that you thought you understood it! But I might actually say "jeg sprakk ballongen" (if I punctured it deliberately), even though I wouldn't say "jeg sprakk speilet". I suppose this just proves NorwegianNYC's point: these distinctions are eroding.



Ahh I see, I had begun to think it might've been like saying something such as "I exploded the balloon" in English, but to be honest I could see it possible that something like "I exploded something" becoming said in English at some point in the near future too.


----------

