# Norwegian: få være måte på



## sjiraff

Hi everyone,

*Å få være måte på noe *- I've seen this expression a lot and usually "kind of" get the meaning of it, but I thought it was worth bringing up especially since on first sight it appears very confusing if you don't know what it actually means.

It doesn't mean "to get a way (of) doing anything", but as far as I know it can mean a limit/enough of something?

The thing I don't get is how it is _meant_. Here are a few examples:

1_ - Det fikk være måte på_ forsøk på å snike i _køen_, liksom. (Got from a random google search)

2 - Konkurranse var vel og bra, men det fikk være måte på. (from some historical article about minimum prices on alchohol)

3 - Han bestilte et par pizzaer senere. Om ikke annet for å unngå å svime av; det fikk være måte på drama.

4 - Det får være måte på tilfeldigheter her, men klart jeg kan skjekke det ut, bare så det kan utelukkes. (Detective in a crime book)

Is this just like saying "nok" really? I've also read it just on it's own "Det fikk være måte på!" And I'm not sure if this is like, something you would say to TELL someone - that's enough! Or if it's like saying "That as enough (drama, or whatever) for one day!".

For number 4. in particular I'm really not sure of what the best way to translate this in to english would be, I can't relate it so well to the others above it.

Thanks!


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> Is this just like saying "nok" really? I've also read it just on it's own "Det fikk være måte på!" And I'm not sure if this is like, something you would say to TELL someone - that's enough! Or if it's like saying "That as enough (drama, or whatever) for one day!".
> 
> For number 4. in particular I'm really not sure of what the best way to translate this in to english would be, I can't relate it so well to the others above it.


I would say it's more about limiting something in the sense that whatever we are talking about shouldn't be exaggerated.


----------



## sjiraff

myšlenka said:


> I would say it's more about limiting something in the sense that whatever we are talking about shouldn't be exaggerated.



So in 4. would you say he is saying, "We should limit coincidences here"? I'm not quite sure if it means "should" as in "we should" or that there "logically should" or something else, it's kind of confusing especially when put against how it's used in the past-tense.

Thanks!


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> So in 4. would you say he is saying, "We should limit coincidences here"?


No, he's saying that they should be reasonable. They are trying to solve a crime and they have a number of possible solutions. One of the solutions implies that a lot of coincidences had to occur in such a way that the solution alltogether seems highly implausible.


----------



## Fantonald

You're pretty much spot on. "Måte" here takes on the meaning "appropriate/reasonable amount", and I believe it's only used in a few fixed expressions.

"Alt med måte" = "Everything in moderation"
"Det får være måte på ___" = "There's a limit to ___"

As you said, "Det får (da) være måte på!" can be a way of telling someone "enough already". I'd say it's somewhat milder than just "(Nå er det) nok!", but the meaning is pretty much the same. I suppose technically you need to specify what you've had enough of, but this will often be implied.

 In your sentence 4, the detective seems to think that some theory requires too many coincidences ("Det får være måte på tilfeldigheter (...)"). I'm not sure it can be translated word for word, I'd probably try to rewrite it into him saying "That sounds very far fetched (...)" or something to that effect.


Related are the noun "måtehold" (moderation) and the adjective "måteholden" (used about a person showing moderation). The former is mostly used in the expression "å vise måtehold", and when a person is described as "måteholden", it is often in relation to alcohol consumption.


----------



## sjiraff

myšlenka said:


> No, he's saying that they should be reasonable.  They are trying to solve a crime and they have a number of possible  solutions. One of the solutions implies that a lot of coincidences had  to occur in such a way that the solution alltogether seems highly  implausible.





Fantonald said:


> You're pretty much spot on. "Måte" here takes on the meaning "appropriate/reasonable amount", and I believe it's only used in a few fixed expressions.
> 
> "Alt med måte" = "Everything in moderation"
> "Det får være måte på ___" = "There's a limit to ___"
> 
> As you said, "Det får (da) være måte på!" can be a way of telling someone "enough already". I'd say it's somewhat milder than just "(Nå er det) nok!", but the meaning is pretty much the same. I suppose technically you need to specify what you've had enough of, but this will often be implied.
> 
> In your sentence 4, the detective seems to think that some theory requires too many coincidences ("Det får være måte på tilfeldigheter (...)"). I'm not sure it can be translated word for word, I'd probably try to rewrite it into him saying "That sounds very far fetched (...)" or something to that effect.
> 
> 
> Related are the noun "måtehold" (moderation) and the adjective "måteholden" (used about a person showing moderation). The former is mostly used in the expression "å vise måtehold", and when a person is described as "måteholden", it is often in relation to alcohol consumption.



Ahh I see, that pretty much confirms about what I thought when people would say "Det får da være måte på..." sort of like "Ok that's enough", but in the past tense it kind of threw me off. From what I understand from it meaning "There's a limit to...", but from number 1 my first thought would be, maybe it means "That was enough of attempts...". Or even for number 2., I'm not sure if it juts means "But there was a limit to how good competition could be"? I'm also not sure with number 3. if he means the pizza is what limited the drama, or he just had enough of it?

Note: I meant to write _bestille _not bestemte for the pizza, typo so I corrected it there

Thanks for the replies and happy first post Fantonald!


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> 1_ - Det fikk være måte på_ forsøk på å snike i _køen_, liksom. (Got from a random google search)
> 
> 2 - Konkurranse var vel og bra, men det fikk være måte på. (from some historical article about minimum prices on alchohol)
> 
> 3 - Han bestilte et par pizzaer senere. Om ikke annet for å unngå å svime av; det fikk være måte på drama.



1 - this could relate to the number of attempts or the way they are trying to cut the line.
2 - this relates to the amount of competition.
3 - this relates to the amount of drama. The guy is apparently walking around in a daze and ordered some pizza so that he would't faint because that would cause a lot of drama.


----------



## sjiraff

myšlenka said:


> 1 - this could relate to the number of attempts or the way they are trying to cut the line.
> 2 - this relates to the amount of competition.
> 3 - this relates to the amount of drama. The guy is apparently walking around in a daze and ordered some pizza so that he would't faint because that would cause a lot of drama.



Ahh thanks for that, now I get what it's referring to. But how would you best translate that over to English? For example in 1. is it like, they "decided that was enough attempts" or just in general, "there was a limit to it". I'm kind of unsure if the English equivilant would be like "There are only _so many_ times you can attempt to sneak in the line (ie it's naturally limited)" or more like "we decided that it was enough" (they 'put' the limit on it, if you know what I mean)

Or even in 2., is it like saying "But there was a limit on the amount of competition" or is it like saying "there _became _a limit on the amount of competition" (as in, it got to the point where it got limited)


Thanks


----------



## Fantonald

sjiraff said:


> Thanks for the replies and happy first post Fantonald!


Thanks a lot!


I think some of the confusion might come from the fact that what there is a limit to (the blank in "det får være måte på ___")  will sometimes be the amount of something, and sometimes the degree of something.

In sentence 1, what the speaker has had enough of probably isn't the number of attempts (forsøk) of jumping the queue, but rather the severity/blatancy of an attempt. You get the feeling that the speaker might have let it slide if it was just a minor violation, but this guy really crossed the line.

In 2, there is a limit to how much competition is considered good. A bit of competition was a good thing, but someone was of the opinion that things had gone too far.

In 3, the pizzas are just there to help him get over the drama. What there in his opinion is (or rather should be) a limit to is the drama, and he's ordering pizzas in order not to faint.


----------



## sjiraff

Fantonald said:


> Thanks a lot!
> 
> 
> I think some of the confusion might come from the fact that what there is a limit to (the blank in "det får være måte på ___")  will sometimes be the amount of something, and sometimes the degree of something.
> 
> In sentence 1, what the speaker has had enough of probably isn't the number of attempts (forsøk) of jumping the queue, but rather the severity/blatancy of an attempt. You get the feeling that the speaker might have let it slide if it was just a minor violation, but this guy really crossed the line.
> 
> In 2, there is a limit to how much competition is considered good. A bit of competition was a good thing, but someone was of the opinion that things had gone too far.
> 
> In 3, the pizzas are just there to help him get over the drama. What there in his opinion is (or rather should be) a limit to is the drama, and he's ordering pizzas in order not to faint.



I think I get it now, it's kind of confusing I guess given the words used and especially when in the past tense ('får' and then 'være' is kind of vague to me, the first time I read the phrase I was really confused as to what it meant)
But as you said the thing in question is often implied if it isn't stated, do you understand what is meant when people say things without specifying? The very first time I found it was "Alt kunne jo ikke gå som planlagt heller, fikk være måte på." in its own sentence, but it seems really ambiguous!

Thanks


----------



## raumar

Others know the grammar better than I do, and may correct me. But I suppose that "få" is a modal auxiliary here. And there is nothing mystical about the past tense, you simply use "fikk være måte på" when you talk about something that happened in the past, as in your example 1, 2 and 3. 

The context usually shows what an unspecified "fikk være måte på" means. In your last example, "luck" or perhaps "perfection" is implied: Everything could not go according to the plan; there had to be some limits to (my) luck.


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> Others know the grammar better than I do, and may correct me. But I suppose that "få" is a modal auxiliary here. And there is nothing mystical about the past tense, you simply use "fikk være måte på" when you talk about something that happened in the past, as in your example 1, 2 and 3.
> 
> The context usually shows what an unspecified "fikk være måte på" means. In your last example, "luck" or perhaps "perfection" is implied: Everything could not go according to the plan; there had to be some limits to (my) luck.



I see what you mean with your example there, but is this said quite commonly? "Alt gikk bra innledningsvis, men fikk være måte på!" (plannene gikk i dass!) 

Also what exactly is "modal auxiliary" with regards to "få"?

Thanks!


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> I see what you mean with your example there, but is this said quite commonly? "Alt gikk bra innledningsvis, men fikk være måte på!" (plannene gikk i dass!)


Planene gikk _delvis_ i dass.

And again, the context will show what the expression refers to. I don't hear this expression every day (probably not every month either), so not very common, but there is nothing surprising about it 


> Also what exactly is "modal auxiliary" with regards to "få"?


It's not really a _modal_ auxiliary but just an auxiliary which means something along the lines of _kunne/måtte_. I understand why this seems vague to you (post #10) because I don't know how to translate it to English. I even have problems paraphrasing it.


----------



## sjiraff

myšlenka said:


> Planene gikk *delvis *i dass.
> 
> And again, the context will show what the expression refers to. I don't hear this expression every day (probably not every month either), so not very common, but there is nothing surprising about it



I _think _I get it now, it's like saying "but only so far" until the limit was reached.  I guess I was looking for something like "Alt gikk bra innledningsvis, men det fikk være måte på det" (The second _det _referring to "alt" and the first connecting them as in "there was..")

So if I've understood it correct:_
Vi tjente mye penger på å stjele løk, men fikk være måte (på hvor mange vi kunne tjene) da bonden oppdaget at noe rart var på ferde._




myšlenka said:


> It's not really a _modal_ auxiliary but just an auxiliary which means something along the lines of _kunne/måtte_. I understand why this seems vague to you (post #10) because I don't know how to translate it to English. I even have problems paraphrasing it.



Yeah it really threw me off the first time I ever saw it, but I guess "få" can be used quite differently to how we in English use "get".

Thanks


----------



## raumar

sjiraff said:


> I _think _I get it now, it's like saying "but only so far" until the limit was reached.  I guess I was looking for something like "Alt gikk bra innledningsvis, men det fikk være måte på det" (The second _det _referring to "alt" and the first connecting them as in "there was..")
> 
> So if I've understood it correct:_
> Vi tjente mye penger på å stjele løk, men fikk være måte (på hvor mange vi kunne tjene) da bonden oppdaget at noe rart var på ferde._



Well, not really. Your first intuition was better, The normal expression would be "Alt gikk bra innledningsvis, men det fikk være måte på [something]". The first "det" is usually not dropped. Also, this is almost an exclamation. It does not work to add a clause after "måte på", as you did with "da bonden .....".

As myšlenka explained, "må" as an auxiliary can't be easily translated to English. The translation depends on the context. For example: 

Hun fikk snakke - she was allowed to speak.
Han fikk løftet steinen - he managed to lift the stone
Det får holde - That's enough


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> Well, not really. Your first intuition was better, The normal expression would be "Alt gikk bra innledningsvis, men det fikk være måte på [something]". The first "det" is usually not dropped. Also, this is almost an exclamation. It does not work to add a clause after "måte på", as you did with "da bonden .....".



Oh, I'm a bit surprised there I just assumed you could add something after. Maybe I should have said "..., men det fikk være måte på flaks." or something.




raumar said:


> As





raumar said:


> myšlenka explained, "må" as an auxiliary can't be easily translated to English. The translation depends on the context. For example:
> 
> Hun fikk snakke - she was allowed to speak.
> Han fikk løftet steinen - he managed to lift the stone
> Det får holde - That's enough



Ah I see yes, I understand the bottom three examples there. I suppose it was the combination of få and having være after it kind of made it all vague for me.

Maybe someone would say, "Jeg ventet i venterommet i timevis, men det fikk være måte på å være tålmodig og jeg klaget!"?

Or could one even say "..jeg bestemte meg at det fikk være måte på tålmodighet og..." (Like in English saying, 'I decided that was enough patience/a limit to my patience!' or something?)

Well I think for sure this thread can help explain how to understand what is _meant _when reading/hearing this phrase. For me at least it might take a bit getting used to before I ever feel confident enough to use it though, but that's to be expected. But it's definately a tricky one if it's your first time reading it that's for sure.

Thanks


----------



## myšlenka

raumar said:


> The translation depends on the context. For example:
> 
> Hun fikk snakke - she was allowed to speak.
> Han fikk løftet steinen - he managed to lift the stone
> Det får holde - That's enough


Just to add to the confusion:
Han fikk steinen løftet - he had the stone lifted (by someone else)

However, I think sjiraff was looking for the translation of _få_ in this particular context 
How would you translate _få_ in _"du får hilse"_ or "_jeg får vel gå"_?




sjiraff said:


> Maybe someone would say, "Jeg ventet i venterommet i timevis, men det fikk være måte på å være tålmodig og jeg klaget!"?
> 
> Or could one even say "..jeg bestemte meg at det fikk være måte på tålmodighet og..." (Like in English saying, 'I decided that was enough patience/a limit to my patience!' or something?)


This sounds odd. I would rephrase it to _"jeg forsto at jeg måtte påberegne litt ventetid, men det fikk være måte på"._


----------



## sjiraff

myšlenka said:


> Just to add to the confusion:
> Han fikk steinen løftet - he had the stone lifted (by someone else)


That's interesting, it makes sense to me but I could have sworn I read that noen "fikk skåret strupen" - but it wasn't him cutting his own throat.



myšlenka said:


> However, I think sjiraff was looking for the translation of _få_ in this particular context
> How would you translate _få_ in _"du får hilse"_ or "_jeg får vel gå"_?


I don't think we have a direct equivilant in English but it's used a lot, "jeg får stikke" "Ingenting å se her! nå får du komme deg vekk!" or even when people say "får lov til..." - I guess I always understood it as a sort of more neutral "kan" (even though you can say "kunne få.." etc) but more like to get/be able to. Hard to explain I guess!




myšlenka said:


> This sounds odd. I would rephrase it to _"jeg forsto at jeg måtte påberegne litt ventetid, men det fikk være måte på"._


Hmm I guess I've misunderstood it even more, I was sort of thinking it was like saiyng "But I decided there was a limit/that was enough of being patient!". I ..."In general" there is a limit or meaning...rather than there "became" a limit to how much something can be (since it changes tense) - I'm guessing you could have said in the example above "men det *får *være måte på." even though you're talking about the past?

Like, "I understood that I could count on some time spent waiting, but (as you know) there is a limit!"(to how much waiting time one can expect in general)

Maybe I'm overcomplicating things, but for example in post #11 by Raumar, "Everything could not go according to the plan; *there had to be some limits to (my) luck.*" Since this is constructed in a way I can understand I would have expected in Norwegian for it to become something like "Flaksen varer ikke evig" or "Det måtte være en grense på flaksen" (even if that doesn't really sound natural, just what I would sort of expect) - baring in mind that example in English, does this mean:

Etter å ha vandret rundt i tunnelene i timevis, sa jeg at det fikk være måte på hvor lang en enkelt tunnel kan være.
After having wandered around in the tunnels for hours, I said that there should be/had to be some limit to how long an individual tunnel can be.

Thanks


----------



## raumar

I have tried to think this through, and the expression "får være måte på" seems to be used in quite different contexts.

1) It is often an expression of anger or resentment, as in example 1 in post #1. When you use "det får være måte på [something]" in this context, the "something" is usually the object of your anger. That is (I think) why Myšlenka rephrased your sentence about the waiting room: you are angry at the delayed doctor, not at your own patience.  Myšlenka's _"jeg forsto at jeg måtte påberegne litt ventetid, men det fikk være måte på"_ works well. But if you want to add a word, it could be "_somling_" or "_forsinkelse_".

So, as far as I can see, this means that your example "_Etter å ha vandret rundt i tunnelene i timevis, sa jeg at det fikk være måte på hvor lang en enkelt tunnel kan være_" is OK.

2) Your example 3 in post #1 is different, just as the "_ikke gå som planlagt_" example in post # 10. There is no anger in these examples. Somebody are describing themselves. The expression is used jokingly, maybe a bit self-depreciating.

3) In your example 2 in post #1, _"det fikk være måte på_" seems to be used synonymously with "_alt med måte_" ("everything in moderation", see Fantonald's explanation in post #5).

The underlying problem here may be that the pattern from one of these contexts can't necessarily be copied into another context.


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> The underlying problem here may be that the pattern from one of these contexts can't necessarily be copied into another context.



Ah yes, I think you're right there actually. It seemed a bit like trying to fit my foot in the wrong shoe, and (for my part at least) it was kind of difficult to distinguish what was going on when it's used in different contexts like that.



raumar said:


> 3) In your example 2 in post #1, _"det fikk være måte på_" seems to be used synonymously with "_alt med måte_" ("everything in moderation", see Fantonald's explanation in post #5).


Is it ever okay to say, alt med måtehold?

Thanks!


----------



## raumar

sjiraff said:


> Is it ever okay to say, alt med måtehold?



The set phrase is "alt med måte", see for example 
http://snl.no/alt_med_måte

But since "måtehold" means "moderation" (or "temperance"), I am not sure whether "alt med måtehold" is decidedly wrong. That depends on how strict you want to be, I suppose.


----------



## Ífaradà

sjiraff said:


> Is it ever okay to say, alt med måtehold?
> 
> Thanks!


No. Alt med måte is the fixed phrase.

Edit: Didn't see Raumar's answer above. Sorry!

I don't think "alt med måtehold" is wrong - people would totally understand. But phrases are phrases, and leave little room for change.


----------



## sjiraff

Ífaradà said:


> No. Alt med måte is the fixed phrase.
> 
> Edit: Didn't see Raumar's answer above. Sorry!
> 
> I don't think "alt med måtehold" is wrong - people would totally understand. But phrases are phrases, and leave little room for change.





raumar said:


> The set phrase is "alt med måte", see for example
> http://snl.no/alt_med_måte
> 
> But since "måtehold" means "moderation" (or "temperance"), I am not sure  whether "alt med måtehold" is decidedly wrong. That depends on how  strict you want to be, I suppose.



Thanks, I actually saw "alt med måtehold" in a dictionary I have, but I tend to take their examples with a pinch of salt since they can range from fairly inaccurate to totally wrong sometimes.

Is it like in English, you say "han drikker med måte" like, he drinks in moderation?


----------



## Ífaradà

sjiraff said:


> Thanks, I actually saw "alt med måtehold" in a dictionary I have, but I tend to take their examples with a pinch of salt since they can range from fairly inaccurate to totally wrong sometimes.
> 
> Is it like in English, you say "han drikker med måte" like, he drinks in moderation?


Exactly!


----------



## sjiraff

Ífaradà said:


> Exactly!



Great, cheers!


----------

