# All Nordic languages: he has just done it



## Nino83

Hello everyone. 

I'm asking again about the position of adverbs like "just, always, often" into a sentence. 
In an independent clause, when there is a compound tense, can the adverb be placed between the conjugated verb and the past participle in Northern Germanic languages? 

He has just done it
Han har gjort just det/Han har gjort precis det
Han har just gjort det/Han har precis gjort det

Thank you


----------



## myšlenka

Nino83 said:


> In an independent clause, when there is a compound tense, can the adverb be placed between the conjugated verb and the past participle in Northern Germanic languages?


Yes. In your example it is the only licit position.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you!

And if I start the sentence with the adverb, is the subject placed between the conjugated verb and the past participle?

Just/precis har han gjort det


----------



## myšlenka

Nino83 said:


> And if I start the sentence with the adverb, is the subject placed between the conjugated verb and the past participle?
> 
> Just/precis har han gjort det


Yes, except that with this particular adverb it is not possible (as I already mentioned in #2).


----------



## Nino83

Ok. So, with "today", I should write _i dag har han läst en bok_.


----------



## myšlenka

Nino83 said:


> Ok. So, with "today", I should write _i dag har han läst en bok_.


Exactly, due to the verb second constraint.


----------



## Nino83

myšlenka said:


> Exactly, due to the verb second constraint.



Is this verb second rule broken when a dependent clause is placed before the independent one, like in German and Dutch? 

Om du studerar, köpa jag en present till dig.


----------



## myšlenka

Nino83 said:


> Is this verb second rule broken when a dependent clause is placed before the independent one, like in German and Dutch?
> 
> [Om du studerar], köpa jag en present till dig.


Fronting a dependent clause does not lead to a violation of verb second.


----------



## Nino83

myšlenka said:


> Fronting a dependent clause does not lead to a violation of verb second.



In other words the dependent clause works as an adverb. 

Thank you!


----------



## AutumnOwl

Nino83 said:


> He has just done it
> Han har gjort just det/*Han har gjort precis det*
> Han har just gjort det/Han har precis gjort det


To me the sentence in bold would be: *He have just done that*, as _det_ in Swedish can be translated as both it and that.


----------



## Dan2

Nino83 said:


> Is this verb second rule broken when a dependent clause is placed before the independent one, like in German and Dutch?
> 
> Om du studerar, köpa jag en present till dig.


Hi Nino - Can you clarify with an example what you have in mind when you say that the V2 rule is broken in this case in German?  Thanks.


----------



## Nino83

Dan2 said:


> Hi Nino - Can you clarify with an example what you have in mind when you say that the V2 rule is broken in this case in German?  Thanks.



The example would be identical to the one I've made, for example (I don't know if German is allowed here), _Wenn du das Buch gelesen hast, *kannst* du Tennis spielen_. 
I counted only the elements of the independent clause, so the verb was in the first "slot" but if we consider the preceding dependent sentence like it is an adverb, the V2 rule is not broken.


----------



## Dan2

Thanks Nino.  I see now that there was an ambiguity in your post 7.  ("Is the rule broken ...?").  From the German (and I believe the Scandinavian) point of view, the rule is NOT broken, because the subordinate clause is viewed as filling "slot 1", followed by the main-clause verb in "slot 2".  I think all is well...


----------



## DerFrosch

AutumnOwl said:


> To me the sentence in bold would be: *He have just done that*, as _det_ in Swedish can be translated as both it and that.


I hate to be nitpicky, but "*Han har gjort precis det*" should be translated as "*He has done just *(=exactly)* that*". And that's not the meaning Nino was interested in.


----------



## Nino83

Some example with _alltid, ofta_ and _inte_.
Han har alltid gjort det. I dag har han alltid gjort det. Han säger att han alltid har gjort det.
Han har ofta gjort det. I dag har han ofta gjort det. Han säger att han ofta har gjort det.
Han har inte gjort det. I dag har han inte gjort det. Han säger att han inte har gjort det.

If I want to say _He hasn't always/often done it_, do I put _alltid/ofta_ before _inte_?
Han har alltid inte gjort det. I dag har han alltid inte gjort det. Han säge att han alltid inte har gjort det.
Han har ofta inte gjort det. I dag har han ofta inte gjort det. Han säge att han often inte har gjort det.

Is it right?


----------



## DerFrosch

Nino83 said:


> Some example with _alltid, ofta_ and _inte_.
> Han har alltid gjort det. I dag har han alltid gjort det. Han säger att han alltid har gjort det.
> Han har ofta gjort det. I dag har han ofta gjort det. Han säger att han ofta har gjort det.
> Han har inte gjort det. I dag har han inte gjort det. Han säger att han inte har gjort det.
> 
> _*All the above sentences are correct.*_
> 
> If I want to say _He hasn't always/often done it_, do I put _alltid/ofta_ before _inte_?  *No. "Inte" must be placed in front of the adverb it negates.*
> Han har alltid inte gjort det. I dag har han alltid inte gjort det. Han säge*r* att han alltid inte har gjort det.
> Han har ofta inte gjort det. I dag har han ofta inte gjort det. Han säge*r* att han oft*a* inte har gjort det.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you, DerFrosch. 
So, I should write:
Han har inte alltid/ofta gjort det. I dag har han inte alltid/ofta gjort det. Han säger att han inte alltid/ofta har gjort det. 
It is similar to English.


----------



## DerFrosch

Nino83 said:


> So, I should write:
> Han har inte alltid/ofta gjort det. I dag har han inte alltid/ofta gjort det. Han säger att han inte alltid/ofta har gjort det.


Exactly.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you. 
I had this doubt because I read this sentence on a book: Imorse hade han *ännu inte* packat väskan.


----------



## DerFrosch

I see. That is indeed the natural word order in that case.

It's not an absolute rule that "_inte" _is always placed in front of adverbs. There are some exceptions, and "_ännu" _is one of them. I think this is because if _ännu _is removed in this sentence, the sentence is no longer correct. We can't say: *_I morse hade han ännu packat väskan. _And that's not true for your earlier example: "_Han har inte alltid gjort det"_ and "_Han har alltid gjort det_" are both possible.

Also note that in the equivalent English sentence, the word order would be similar, "_still" _before "_not"_: _This morning he *still *had *not *packed his bag.

_


----------



## Nino83

Ah, ok, it is an exception.  
Thank you for your answers.


----------



## a.d.o.m.

DerFrosch said:


> I hate to be nitpicky, but "*Han har gjort precis det*" should be translated as "*He has done just *(=exactly)* that*". And that's not the meaning Nino was interested in.



Agreed.

I've heard an expression quite often, but since I am still in the process of learning the language, I haven't found out how that word is spelled. Sounds something like "nettopp". Is this correct? If so, would you mind writing down an example for me/us to see?

Cheers


----------



## raumar

This thread is about all Nordic languages, but I assume that you ask about Norwegian? Yes, "_nettopp_" is correct in Norwegian. See Bokmålsordboka: 
http://www.nob-ordbok.uio.no/perl/o...maal=5&ant_nynorsk=5&bokmaal=+&ordbok=bokmaal

"_Nettopp_" means either "exactly/precisely", or "a moment ago". If we use the sentence that has been discussed in this thread, we can say:

Han har gjort nettopp det (with stress on det) - He has done excactly that
Han har nettopp gjort det - He has just done it (he did it a moment ago)

In both cases, we can use "_akkurat_" interchangeably with "_nettopp_".


----------



## bicontinental

Nino83 said:


> So, I should write:
> Han har inte alltid/ofta gjort det.



Danish:

Yes that would be the correct word order, however, it depends what you intend to express:

*Han har altid ikke gjort det *: The word order/this construction is incorrect, but the intended meaning would presumably be the opposite of ‘_han har altid gjort det’_ (he has always done it) because ‘ikke’ modifies ‘gjort’. If that’s what you wanted to say, ‘_altid ikke gjort’_ would be expressed as _aldrig gjort_ in natural speech since ‘altid’ and ‘aldrig’ are opposites (always and never). Han har aldrig gjort det/he has never done it.


*Han har ikke altid gjort det *. The word order here is correct, but the meaning is different from that above in that in this case ‘ikke’ modifies ’altid’, i.e. not always (but maybe sometimes): He hasn’t always done it.


----------



## Nino83

Thank you bicontinental.
The meaning I want to express is the second one, i.e "he hasn't always done it".


----------



## raumar

Bicontinental has showed what the meaning and word order would be with "alltid", but the answer is somewhat different with "ofte". However, Bic's main point is correct also with "ofte": different word orders give different meanings. 

(I am Norwegian, but I don't think there are any major differences between the Scandinavian languages in this case. I hope others can correct me if I am wrong).

*Han har ofte ikke gjort det*: This word order is correct, but it means "He has often failed to do it".

*Han har ikke ofte gjort det:* This word order might not be incorrect, but it is stilted, and not likely to be used. If the meaning is "He hasn't done it often", or "He has seldom done it", the most natural word order would be:
*Han har ikke gjort det ofte.*


----------



## Dan2

raumar said:


> I am Norwegian, but I don't think there are any major differences between the Scandinavian languages in this case.


Nor between Norwegian and English!  My feelings about word-for-word translations of the three sentence above mirror raumar's comments. (Maybe the second is not _quite _as unusual as you sense for Norw.)

In addition I can say, "Often he hasn't done it", with meaning "He has often failed to ...".  How about "Ofte har han ikke gjort det"?


----------



## raumar

Dan2 said:


> In addition I can say, "Often he hasn't done it", with meaning "He has often failed to ...".  How about "Ofte har han ikke gjort det"?



Yes, this works just as well in Norwegian - but this word order could actually have both meanings. Your interpretation is the most likely. But if you stress the word "ofte", and "ikke" is unstressed, it could actually mean that he has seldom done it (although this is not the usual way to express this meaning)


----------



## Dan2

Now that you mention it... with effort you can just barely get the "seldom" meaning in English too.  Context helps:
- So he's done it often?
- No. OFTEN he hasn't done it.  (= "Often?  No, that's not right.")
Maybe this should really be written:
- "OFTEN" he hasn't done it. (that is, "often" is not the right word to be using).


----------

