# Swedish: Nominalization of adjectives



## TheNikus

I'm currently trying to figure out how Swedish adjectives get nominalized. 

My native language is German, so this is how it works in German:

adjective: süß (sweet)

man: ein Süßer [Er ist ein Süßer.]
woman: eine Süße [Sie ist eine Süße.]
thing: etwas Süßes [Dies ist etwas Süßes.]

man: der Süße [Wo ist der Süße?]
woman: die Süße [Wo ist die Süße?]
thing: das Süße [Wo ist das Süße?]

and I figure this is how it works in Swedish:

adjective: söt (sweet)

man: en söt [Han är en söt.]
woman: en söt [Hon är en söt.]
thing: något sött [Detta är något sött.]

man: den söte [Var är den söte?]
woman: den söta [Var är den söta?]
thing: det söta [Var är det söta?]

Is this correct? Anything to add? Thank you for your help.


----------



## AutumnOwl

You are both correct and incorrect, as today there are only two grammatical genders in Swedish, common (en-ord) and neuter (ett-ord). Earlier we also had/used masculine and feminine grammatical gender, but today they are a part of the common gender, and there are still many who nominalize adjectives according to masculine and feminine natural gender.

If following these rules:

man (common): söt
woman (common): söt
thing (common): söt
thing (neuter): sött

man (common): den söta
man (natural): den söte
woman (common): den söta
woman (natural): den söta
thing (common): den söta
thing (neuter) det söta


----------



## TheNikus

I understand. I forgot about the distinction between natural and grammatical gender. Thanks.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

AutumnOwl said:


> there are still many who nominalize adjectives according to masculine and feminine natural gender.


This is if course also true for regular adjectives - I am one of those who distinguish between masculine and feminine suffixes, thus: den söt*e* pojken, den söt*a *flickan.


----------



## TheNikus

Wilma_Sweden said:


> This is if course also true for regular adjectives - I am one of those who distinguish between masculine and feminine suffixes, thus: den söt*e* pojken, den söt*a *flickan.



I see.


----------



## raumar

TheNikus said:


> man: en söt [Han är en söt.]
> woman: en söt [Hon är en söt.]



Maybe the Swedes could comment on these two sentences? This looks definitely wrong from my Norwegian perspective - but Swedish is perhaps different?


----------



## TheNikus

raumar said:


> Maybe the Swedes could comment on these two sentences? This looks definitely wrong from my Norwegian perspective - but Swedish is perhaps different?



I could give you the English equivalents
man: He is a sweet one.
woman: She is a sweet one.

The same works in German, as I wrote in the first post. I just guessed the same logic applied to Swedish.
What exactly seems wrong to you? The use of the word "sweet" as "cute/lovable" or the grammar of the sentences?


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

raumar said:


> Maybe the Swedes could comment on these two sentences? This looks definitely wrong from my Norwegian perspective - but Swedish is perhaps different?


I agree that it looks wrong in that context, the sentences are gramatically acceptable because the correct gender is used, but not particularly idiomatic because we usually have some more context, and perhaps more often use nominalisation in a definite form:
En ful och en söt tjej satt på bänken. Den söta reste sig och gick. (An ugly girl and a cute girl were sitting on the bench. The cute one got up.) Please note that en ful in this sentence is not nominalisation IMO, it's an economic omission of the first noun, but this construction is not possible in English, at least I don't think so.

Another example is the book title, The old man and the sea, by Hemingway - the Swedish title is Den gamle och havet, and this of course is a nominalisation that works in Swedish but not in English. On the other hand, we have the movie title: The good, the bad and the ugly - I believed that this wouldn't be possible in English, at least not in singular (the original title is _Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo). _This, however, might have to render a new thread in English Only if not discussed previously.


----------



## Warped

"Den söte/söta" is OK as a noun, but I have never heard "en söt" as a noun. "Sötnos" could work. Usually, Swedes say "en söt pojke" etc.

The sentence is "Han är en söt" which doesn't have a noun.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

TheNikus said:


> I could give you the English equivalents
> man: He is a sweet one.
> woman: She is a sweet one.
> 
> The same works in German, as I wrote in the first post. I just guessed the same logic applied to Swedish.
> What exactly seems wrong to you? The use of the word "sweet" as "cute/lovable" or the grammar of the sentences?


I don't consider "a sweet one" as nominalisation, we need to insert the noun "one", thus, "sweet" becomes an adjective. But maybe there are degrees of nominalisation?


----------



## raumar

TheNikus said:


> What exactly seems wrong to you? The use of the word "sweet" as "cute/lovable" or the grammar of the sentences?



It is the grammar - and as far as I can see from Wilma's and Warped's answers, the situation is the same in Norwegian and Swedish. There are no problems with the definite form, "den söta", but "en söt" as a noun seems wrong. As Wilma has shown, it is possible to construct sentences with "en söt", but this seems to be cases where the noun is omitted. 

The English solution is also possible in Norwegian ("_en søt en_"). However, the standard way to construct nouns from adjectives in Norwegian is to add "-ing". For example, "_dumming_" (from _dum_ - stupid) and "_stygging_" (from "_stygg_" - ugly). This does not work for all adjectives, though. You won't find "_søting_" in the dictionary. It looks childish, but you may nevertheless come across it on Facebook (in those posts where people tell each other how wonderful they are and how good they look). "_Søtnos_", as Warped mentions, exists in Norwegian as well (although I don't expect young people to use it). My point is just that in Norwegian, and probably in Swedish as well, there are better translations of sentences like "He/she is a sweet one".


----------



## MattiasNYC

(My comments are just about usage, not specific grammar)



raumar said:


> man: en söt [Han är en söt.]
> woman: en söt [Hon är en söt.]
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the Swedes could comment on these two sentences? This looks definitely wrong from my Norwegian perspective - but Swedish is perhaps different?
Click to expand...


Well, I think they sound lopped off. If you ask a question in English it'd show pretty clearly what's wrong:

"What's he like?"
"He is a cute." - lopped off
"He is a cute man." - fine

ergo

man: en söt [Han är en söt _*man*_.] - works

As for the English example given earlier;

_"I could give you the English equivalents
man: He is a sweet one."_

We could actually write that out in Swedish as well;

man: en söt [Han är en söt _*en*_.]

I think that works, but I would say it's regional.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

MattiasNYC said:


> We could actually write that out in Swedish as well;
> 
> man: en söt [Han är en söt _*en*_.]
> 
> I think that works, but I would say it's regional.


Works for me!
Conclusion: We have found that nominalisation is fine in the definite form singular, and although this hasn't been discussed previously, this is also the case for  plural: De dödas vilorum. (the resting place of the dead).


----------

