# Swedish: Definiteness and Uncountable Things



## Gluehead

I came across with this article which has the following sentence:

En uppfinning från KTH omvandlar telefonpratet till ansiktsrörelser på datorskärmen.

I would've use telefonprat instead of telefonpratet for the simple reason that you cannot count telephone conservations. They are quit abstract things. So white the definite form?

GE


----------



## Alxmrphi

I don't understand why you don't think telephone conversations can't be counted?

After the investigation, a reference to *the *multiple *telefone conversations* over the course of the last 3 years were revealed.. Speaking of *the telefone conversations* Mr Swedish said  that they had been fabricated...

You can't count bread, but you can count conversations... could you explain again?



> I would've use*d* telefonprat instead of telefonpratet for the simple reason that you cannot count telephone conservations. They are quit*e* abstract things. So *why* the definite form?


----------



## Gluehead

uhm... What lousy English I have written.  Maybe it is my dyslexia again.

OK you can count telephone conversations. I'll give you that. But I still don't understand why the definite form. For example, you cannot say in English that

An invention from TKH that converts the phone conversation into face movements.

If you are not speaking about a certain phone conversation.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Hi Gluehead,

Let's replace the words, I'm going to pick two very countable nouns in English (frog/horse)

An invention from TKH that coverts frogs into horses..

Ok, these are both normal countable nouns, but 'the' isn't used, however if we are referring to specifics that have been already mentioned, then we can use the definite form.


_If you go to a field and find *five green frogs*, take them back home and put them with the new invention. Switch on the invention from TKH that converts *the frogs* into horses and press the red button_..

It's a silly sentence in English, but it's the grammar we're talking about here.
Basically, although in the first example it doesn't use 'the', it doesn't mean it's not countable, just in it's plural indefinite form.

But...... I do see what you mean that generally "phone conversation" can also be uncountable... but it can also refer to normal conversations, it works both as a countable and uncountable noun..

"An invention from TKH that converts phone conversation into facial movements."

This is correct, here it is uncountable, but if we add 'a' to it, "a phone conversation into..." then it suddenly becomes countable.

Sorry for this clumbsy explanation but, it works both ways, so maybe it's the countable way that is being used in the Swedish part, my point was it's _*not only *_uncountable...

I hope that helped.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Here's my stab at it:

Telefonprat is indeed uncountable in Swedish, so you would never use it in the plural. 

The definiteness is another issue: Normally we use the indefinite form to refer to generic things, so yes, Gluehead is partly right in that this would be the normal behaviour.

However, we can also refer to generic things using the definite form, particularly about something that has already been mentioned. The preceding sentence introduces the topic:  Nu får hörselskadade möjlighet att läsa på läpparna även när de talar i telefon. (=Now, the hearing impaired will be able to lip-read also when talking on the phone)_._ The introductory sentence gives definiteness to the generic telephone conversations, and thus, they can be referred to in the definite form, even if they are, essentially, still generic.

So yes, it's basically the same issue as Alex's frogs: they have already been mentioned, so now it's OK to refer to them in the definite form.

Please note that the headline itself is in the indefinite form because it's the first instance, and therefore it must be generic, i.e. indefinite: Datoransikte möjliggör telefonprat för döva (=Computer face enables telephone talking for the deaf).

Another context where we can refer to generic things in the definite form is when describing animals and their behaviour: We can say 'tigers are dangerous animals' or 'the tiger is a dangerous animal' - it works the same way in Swedish.

/Wilma

_
_


----------



## Alxmrphi

Wilma_Sweden said:


> Alex's frogs_
> _


hehehe 



			
				Wilma_Sweden said:
			
		

> Another context where we can refer to generic things in the definite form is when describing animals and their behaviour: We can say 'tigers are dangerous animals' or 'the tiger is a dangerous animal' - it works the same way in Swedish.


This is what I was trying to say, I just couldn't think of examples!!
_(You're up late Wilma??)_


----------



## Gluehead

Ok, så jag kunde säga att tigern är ett fardigt djur. Men...

I can now somehow little bit understand more when I started to read the article from the beginning. But could there by itself be a sentence

En uppfinning från KTH omvandlar telefonprat till ansiktsrörelser på datorskärmen.

or must it be indefinete?

And would it be totally wrong or sound silly if the undefinite form was used in the article?


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Gluehead said:


> But could there by itself be a sentence
> 
> En uppfinning från KTH omvandlar telefonpratet till ansiktsrörelser på datorskärmen.
> 
> or must it be indefinete?
> 
> And would it be totally wrong or sound silly if the undefinite form was used in the article?


If I correct your sentence above to the indefinite form, your question makes more sense. I hope this is what you meant.

The answer is no. If there is no antecedent, it must be in the indefinite form. The answer to your second question is also no: it wouldn't have looked wrong or silly to put that sentence, in that context, in the indefinite form. Personally, I would add nämligen in that case:

_Nu får hörselskadade möjlighet att läsa på läpparna även när de talar i telefon. En uppfinning från KTH omvandlar nämligen telefonprat till ansiktsrörelser på datorskärmen. _

Nämligen creates a link between cause and effect, but in a way, so does the definite form, although less obviously.

/Wilma


----------



## dinji

I don't think "prat" translates 'conversation', especially not in terms of countability.

"Prat" would translate something like 'talk', 'speach', 'discourse' even 'babble' but not 'conversation' which is "samtal".

"pratet" would translate approximately "the discourse".


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

dinji said:


> I don't think "prat" translates 'conversation', especially not in terms of countability.
> 
> "Prat" would translate something like 'talk', 'speach', 'discourse' even 'babble' but not 'conversation' which is "samtal".
> 
> "pratet" would translate approximately "the discourse".


This is true, but to be honest, I'm not sure what the best English translation would be in this context. 

I didn't raise the issue because I didn't feel it was important. We were discussing the *Swedish* word, telefonprat, and why it was put in the definite form in its *Swedish* context, when the OP felt it was generic and ought to have been in the indefinite form (good catch). Since the issue was 'genericness', not 'countability', I didn't see any need to find a suitable word in English, just remarked that it is uncountable in Swedish.

/Wilma


----------

