# Swedish: ...för att inte Norge skulle...



## kilton

Hello,

Wondering if someone can explain the placement of_ inte_ in this sentence:
_
Han sade att han hade rätt att döda eftersom han kämpade för att inte Norge skulle förstöras av människor från andra länder.
_
I would have put it after_ Norge_ (i.e., before _v1_ in the bisats). But maybe I'm getting the clauses confused.

Thanks.


----------



## Tjahzi

It can be placed after _Norge_ as well. I'll try figuring out why this is still the most common way to put it. (That is, your reasoning is flawless, there are simply more rules to be applied to this case.)


----------



## LilianaB

I have never seen it placed after Norge - or any other noun, in reported speech. Would this be acceptable?


----------



## BlueSuede

When I see this sentence I too fell that _inte _can be placed before Norge, or after Norge.
Does this choice change the meaning? That is what this posting will be about.

The important part of the sentence is:
(P1) "_eftersom han kämpade för att *inte Norge* skulle förstöras"_
Does this mean: Not Norway, but any other country?
or
(P2) "_eftersom han kämpade för att *Norge* __*inte *__skulle förstöras"_
Does this mean: Norway specifically wouldn't be destroyed, but perhaps be hurt in one way or another (like many people would be killed, part of its territory would be lost)? The important thing here is that Norway wouldn't be destroyed.

So I feel that P1 and P2 is different, bet then we have to go deep into details that we normally wouldn't do, unless it is brought into our attention, like it is in this thread.

My short answer is: Both alternatives are correct, but give different meanings. But noone will care a lot.

(There is also a third place _where inte _might be put:
(P3) "_eftersom han __*inte *__kämpade för att *Norge* skulle förstöras"_
Meaning that he was passive, did other things, or just didn't care. However, this is out of the scope of this thread, so it doesn't really need to be commented upon.)


----------



## LilianaB

Doesn't it have anything to do with the introduction of the subordinate clause that the inte travels to the position in front of the noun? I think something like that happens in reported speech as well. I am sorry, it is in front of the verb in reported speech.


----------



## kilton

Thanks everyone. The only rule I know of on this topic is that a sentence adverbial moves in front of the first verb in a bisats. So that's why I expected it to be placed after _Norge_.

 BlueSuede: I interpreted the sentence as somewhere in between your P1 and P2.  In English,_ "...he fought so that Norway would not be destroyed..."_ would mean that he thought Norway was threatened by something, and therefore fought against it so that it wouldn't "destroy" (which happens to be an exaggerated use of the word in this case) the country. There's no indication here of anything potentially happening to other countries, nor any less severe things potentially happening to Norway (such that it wouldn't be "destroyed", but still hurt in some way).


----------



## LilianaB

Threatened by people from other countries, I would say.


----------



## Tjahzi

It's quite simple actually. Here is a somewhat more accurate analysis:

The part governing the subclause is the adverb _för att_ (_in order to_) and what causes the confusion is that it can be negated, _för att inte_ (_in order not to_). So, what we have here is basically two phrases with the following structures: [Adv-NEG]+[subclause] and [Adv]+[subclause-NEG]. Obviously, their essential meaning is more or less identical.


----------



## BlueSuede

Best Tjahzi,

_You mean that the two sentenses
"för att *inte Norge* skulle förstöras"_ meaning "not Norway"
is equal to 
_"__för att Norge  _*inte *_*skulle förstöras* "_ meaning "wouldn't be destroyd"?
By your analysis you conclude that "Obviously, their essential meaning is more or less identical."?
Interesting but I wouldn't go so far...


----------



## Tjahzi

Well, just as _jag vill inte att du kommer försent _is "more or less identical" to _jag vill att du inte kommer försent._


----------



## zyzzy

kilton said:


> Hello,
> 
> Wondering if someone can explain the placement of_ inte_ in this sentence:
> _
> Han sade att han hade rätt att döda eftersom han kämpade för att inte Norge skulle förstöras av människor från andra länder.
> _
> I would have put it after_ Norge_ (i.e., before _v1_ in the bisats). But maybe I'm getting the clauses confused.
> 
> Thanks.


I would also have used "... för att Norge inte..." here. Although the meaning is pretty much the same and both sentences are correct, I think "... för att inte Norge..." sounds a bit more sloppy or speech-like.


----------

