# All Nordic languages: generalizing definite article?



## Gavril

Hello,

In many languages, the definite article can have a generalizing meaning, referring to the whole set of things designated by a noun.

E.g., in French, you can say

_Les requins sont dangereux. _"Sharks are dangerous."

Here, _les requins _doesn't mean "the sharks" (= a specific group of sharks who have been previously mentioned), but "sharks (in general)".

Can the definite article function this way in any of the Scandinavian languages? Or, in general, can the definite articles in these languages only refer to a particular, previously-mentioned (or contextually implied) thing or things?

Thanks for any info


----------



## AutumnOwl

There are two ways to express the definite article in Swedish, either _de, den, det,_ or with a suffix_ -a, -en, -et, -men, -met, -n, -na, -nen. _With sharks I would use no definite article when talking about sharks in general, _Hajar är farliga_, but with for example apples it's possible to say_ Äpplena är mogna nu_ (the apples are ready (to pick) now, and meaning apples in general.


----------



## Gavril

AutumnOwl said:


> There are two ways to express the definite article in Swedish, either _de, den, det,_ or with a suffix_ -a, -en, -et, -men, -met, -n, -na, -nen. _With sharks I would use no definite article when talking about sharks in general, _Hajar är farliga_, but with for example apples it's possible to say_ Äpplena är mogna nu_ (the apples are ready (to pick) now, and meaning apples in general.



Doesn't "the apples are ready to pick" generally imply a specific group of apples, rather than apples in general? How would you normally translate a sentence such as "Apples are tasty"?


----------



## Merkurius

Hi Gavril. 

In Icelandic, as you know, we would say ''Hákarlar eru hættulegir'' because ''Hákarlarnir eru hættulegir'' means a certain group of sharks.
I also think that AutumnOwl gives a good example, instead of apples in Iceland we would use e.g. berries (blue berries or something of that kind). When a certain month comes we say ,,Berin eru tilbúin til tínslu'' referring to all the berries! 
(Without knowing it) I think AutumnOwl is using a similar example, in a certain month all the apples should have grown and reached a certain point so now the people can begin to pick all the apples!


----------



## Gavril

Merkurius said:


> Hi Gavril.
> 
> In Icelandic, as you know, we would say ''Hákarlar eru hættulegir'' because ''Hákarlarnir eru hættulegir'' means a certain group of sharks. I also think that AutumnOwl gives a good example, instead of apples in Iceland we would use e.g. berries (blue berries or something of that kind). When a certain month comes we say ,,Berin eru tilbúin til tínslu'' referring to all the berries!
> (Without knowing it) I think AutumnOwl is using a similar example, in a certain month all the apples should have grown and reached a certain point so now the people can begin to pick all the apples!



I was making a distinction between sentences such as

1) _The apples are ready to pick _[which suggests a specific set of apples that are available in this context, however large that set might be]

vs. sentences such as

2) _Apples are usually ready to pick in the summer_

Sentence #2 is a more abstract statement about "apples in general" (and therefore English avoids using the definite article in it). Because of the word _nu _"now" in AutumnOwl's sentence (_Äpplena är mogna nu__)_, I doubted that it had the type of meaning seen in #2. But I may have been missing something.


----------



## Määränpää

AutumnOwl said:


> With sharks I would use no definite article when talking about sharks in general, _Hajar är farliga_,



Is my Swedish for foreigners textbook wrong when it says that _Sköldpaddor kan leva hundra år_ and _Sköldpaddorna kan leva hundra år_ are both correct when you're talking about tortoises in general (as a species)?

I know that _sköldpaddorna_ can also refer to specific individual tortoises who have been previously mentioned.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

In Norwegian, it is usually the indefinite plural that indicates the general (_haier er farlige_). However, you write: "Can the definite article function this way in any of the Scandinavian  languages? Or, in general, can the definite articles in these languages  only refer to a particular, previously-mentioned thing or things?" With the exception of certain rare constructs (especially in Danish), the Scandinavian languages do not use definite articles, but definite forms. That is - not for noun phrases alone - only when combined with adjectives.


----------



## myšlenka

You do see some generic uses of the definite forms in the singular. I believe this holds for Swedish/Danish too:

Ulven er et farlig dyr.
Poteten er en allsidig grønnsak.
Rypa er en reirflykter.
etc

But the indefinite plural also works here.


----------



## Merkurius

> _The berries are ready to pick_


=> Berin eru tilbúin til tínslu.

vs.


> _Berries are usually ready to pick in the summer_


Yfirleitt má tína berin í sumar/Berin eru yfirleitt tilbúin til tínslu um sumarið.


----------

