# Norwegian: stengt/forbudt



## sjiraff

Hello everyone,

I'm just wondering if there is any difference between saying "Det er stengt for vurdering av denne videoen" (from the youtube interface) and "Vurdering for denne videoen er stengt" - and I also heard once "Vet de ikke at det er forbudt med rullebrett her i byen?" (Don't they know skateboards are banned in the city?)

I'm just wondering really why it is said in such a way, is this just used when something is "closed" or "banned"? Is there any reason one would say this in particular? Mind you that being said there are things like "Det var ikke særlig med muligheter hjemme" which aren't just talking about being banned/forbidden

Thanks!


----------



## NorwegianNYC

The latter ("Vurdering for denne videoen er stengt") is ungrammatical, and even with the benefit of doubt, a hopeless construction.
I am not sure what your question is. What exactly are you pointing out here


----------



## sjiraff

NorwegianNYC said:


> The latter ("Vurdering for denne videoen er stengt") is ungrammatical, and even with the benefit of doubt, a hopeless construction.
> I am not sure what your question is. What exactly are you pointing out here



Well, with the first example I was wondering why it's written that way and not the (wrong) version I came up with, since I would have thought something like that would mean "rating for this video is closed". But I wonder if there is a reason it's written in the way "Det er stengt for  ...." 

I was thinking, "Noe er stengt" so maybe "Vurdering er stengt..."?

And for the last example I wonder why anyone would say "Det er forbudt med rullebrett" instead of just "Rullebrett er forbudte" if you know what I mean 

Thanks!


----------



## NorwegianNYC

I understand. When you (or Youtube) say "the rating for this video is closed", does that mean expired or closed in general? If the latter, I would suggest rewriting instead. Normally, "stengt" is in reference to a noun that can be physically closed (veien er stengt), and since ratings is not a thing one can physically closed, it sounds a bit off to combine the two.

Why someone would say "det er forbudt med rullebrett" as opposed to "rullebrett er forbudt" is really a matter of choice and preference. It is the same in any language. In English: "it is not possible to walk on water" vs. "it is impossible to walk on water" is a stylistic choice, not a grammatical one.


----------



## sjiraff

NorwegianNYC said:


> I understand. When you (or Youtube) say "the rating for this video is closed", does that mean expired or closed in general? If the latter, I would suggest rewriting instead. Normally, "stengt" is in reference to a noun that can be physically closed (veien er stengt), and since ratings is not a thing one can physically closed, it sounds a bit off to combine the two.


ah yes, I probably should have explained that since it's probably adapted to fit "internet language". It means that the ratings have been closed, not expired as in "utløpt" or anything. I'm not really sure why it would say "Det er stengt for", in this case woudl that be the only correct way to write it? I know in Norwegian things work differently, with things like "Jeg har knapt med tid" etc, but I wondered if there's a specific reason for this in relation to ratings being closed off. 

Maybe if it were "Vurdering er deaktivert", does it mean it could also be "Det er deaktivert for vurdering"?




NorwegianNYC said:


> Why someone would say "det er forbudt med rullebrett" as opposed to "rullebrett er forbudt" is really a matter of choice and preference. It is the same in any language. In English: "it is not possible to walk on water" vs. "it is impossible to walk on water" is a stylistic choice, not a grammatical one.


Would you also say things like, "Det er forsinket med busser her" ever? Or maybe "Det er få med muligheter" whenever?

Thanks!


----------



## NorwegianNYC

sjiraff said:


> "Det er stengt for", in this case would that be the only correct way to write it?


"Det er stengt for vurdering" is ambiguous. It can either mean that it is closed in order to evaluate, or that the evaluation is closed. Besides - how can one close an evaluation? One can close the evaluation function/field, but not the evaluation per se. "rating for this video is closed" is better translated "Vurderingsfunksjonen er stengt"


> I wondered if there's a specific reason for this in relation to ratings being closed off.


 No


> Maybe if it were "Vurdering er deaktivert", does it mean it could also be "Det er deaktivert for vurdering"?


No. Try using it in English. It would not work in that way either.


> Would you also say things like, "Det er forsinket med busser her" ever? Or maybe "Det er få med muligheter" whenever?


No, because får=few, which is a quantifier, and a quantifier cannot be used like that. There are few possibilities, not there are few of possibilities. You other example. Consider it in English. "Det er forsinket med busser her" = "It is delayed with busses her". In other words, something is being delayed due to buses. Grammatically sound, but semantically - well - it does not mean anything, does it?


----------



## sjiraff

NorwegianNYC said:


> "Det er stengt for vurdering" is ambiguous. It can either mean that it is closed in order to evaluate, or that the evaluation is closed. Besides - how can one close an evaluation? One can close the evaluation function/field, but not the evaluation per se. "rating for this video is closed" is better translated "Vurderingsfunksjonen er stengt"
> No
> No. Try using it in English. It would not work in that way either.


I think it might be because it's quite specific language to youtube, I see what you mean now about it possibly meaning "closed in order to be evaluated", but it just means the video uploader has disabled rating, which I guess is a bit like saying "voting is closed" in English maybe.




NorwegianNYC said:


> No, because får=few, which is a quantifier, and a quantifier cannot be used like that. There are few possibilities, not there are few of possibilities. You other example. Consider it in English. "Det er forsinket med busser her" = "It is delayed with busses her". In other words, something is being delayed due to buses. Grammatically sound, but semantically - well - it does not mean anything, does it?



Hmm, but doesn't "Det er forbudt med rullebrett her" equally make no sense if it's directly translated to English? "It's forbidden with...". I see what you mean though, it does look like something is being delayed by busses instead. But I don't quite see the line, things like "Det er stengt for *noe" or "det er forbudt med..." seem to be used but what is the difference when you change the nouns/adjectives?

I read also someone say "Det er ikke særlig med muligheter hjemme" which made me wonder if you can just say this all the time, or if it would cause confusion like you highlighted.

Thanks!


----------



## raumar

Sjiraff, you might have mixed two different problems. 

1) the construction "Det er X med Y". There are many such expressions, and you have mentioned some of them. I have not thought this through, but it seems to be two categories here. Others will be able to explain the grammar better than I can, but this is at least an attempt:

a) "med" is a kind of shorthand for something. For example: 

Det er forbudt med rullebrett - Det er forbudt å bruke rullebrett.
Det er koselig med levende lys - Det er koselig å ha levende lys på bordet.
Det er leit med Arne - Det er leit at Arne er syk (eller død).

In these cases, you can replace "med" with a longer expression, and get a meaningful sentence. I don't think that is the case with your "Det er forsinket med busser".

b) "med" is used (together with another word) to express the amount of something. For example: 

Det er knapt med tid - Det er lite tid
Det er rikelig med snø i vinter - Det er mye snø i vinter
Det er bra med fisk i dette vannet - Det er mye fisk i dette vannet
Det er dårlig med ledige jobber for tida - Det er få ledige jobber for tida. 

Your example "Det er få med muligheter" could work, if you replace "få" with "dårlig".


2) "Det er stengt for vurdering" might be something different. "Stengt for" and "åpent for" are sometimes used in such situations. For example "Det er åpent for nye påmeldinger fra 1. juni". I know -- NorwegianNYC pointed out that your example was ambiguous, and my example is equally ambiguous. But people still use such expressions, and it will be less ambiguous if you have a context.


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> Sjiraff, you might have mixed two different problems.
> 
> 1) the construction "Det er X med Y". There are many such expressions, and you have mentioned some of them. I have not thought this through, but it seems to be two categories here. Others will be able to explain the grammar better than I can, but this is at least an attempt:
> 
> a) "med" is a kind of shorthand for something. For example:
> 
> Det er forbudt med rullebrett - Det er forbudt å bruke rullebrett.
> Det er koselig med levende lys - Det er koselig å ha levende lys på bordet.
> Det er leit med Arne - Det er leit at Arne er syk (eller død).
> 
> In these cases, you can replace "med" with a longer expression, and get a meaningful sentence. I don't think that is the case with your "Det er forsinket med busser".


Ahh I see, so maybe something like "Det er forbudt med jakt" might work, meaning "Det er forbudt _å jakte_"?



raumar said:


> b) "med" is used (together with another word) to express the amount of something. For example:
> 
> Det er knapt med tid - Det er lite tid
> Det er rikelig med snø i vinter - Det er mye snø i vinter
> Det er bra med fisk i dette vannet - Det er mye fisk i dette vannet
> Det er dårlig med ledige jobber for tida - Det er få ledige jobber for tida.
> 
> Your example "Det er få med muligheter" could work, if you replace "få" with "dårlig".


Ah yes, it's not just any adjective , now I realise "dårlig" would be referring to a "bad amount" of them, so it's not just that any adjective to describe something can go here.




raumar said:


> 2) "Det er stengt for vurdering" might be something different. "Stengt for" and "åpent for" are sometimes used in such situations. For example "Det er åpent for nye påmeldinger fra 1. juni". I know -- NorwegianNYC pointed out that your example was ambiguous, and my example is equally ambiguous. But people still use such expressions, and it will be less ambiguous if you have a context.


Ahh I see, in that case with "vurdering" , maybe came accross as even more ambiguous because people don't really talk about opening and closing "vurdering" since the internet?

But it's good to know it's used in that way, I think I definately got confused between quantities and things like "det er forbudt med rullebrett" since it seemed as though they could have been the same thing only just with other adjectives rather than two seperate things.

Thanks a bunch!


----------



## Ífaradà

When it comes to "stengt for vudering", it's just one of those things that people will get used to hearing after a while. It sounds odd for a while, then it gradually sinks in.

A lot of the phrases and terms used in English did sound odd at first as well.


----------



## sjiraff

Just to add, I remember before now seeing 

"Det er kult med  alt som er gratis" - a woman said as she looked at some free tickets. Is  this just an expression on its own or does it relate to anything in  this thread?






Ífaradà said:


> When it comes to "stengt for vudering", it's just one of those things that people will get used to hearing after a while. It sounds odd for a while, then it gradually sinks in.
> 
> A lot of the phrases and terms used in English did sound odd at first as well.



Very true, I got used to things like "å ha tilstrekkelig med bensin" but I had never really realised that I had only been using them in terms of quantities of things, so sometimes one can end up overlooking details when picking things up

Thanks!


----------



## NorwegianNYC

I understand. It is the _med_ that is the confusing part. Prepositions are notoriously confusing in almost any languages. The Germanic languages are very preposition "heavy", and historically, the prepositions were tied in with cases, and acted in a predictable pattern. When the case-system eroded away in languages such as Scandinavian and English, many prepositions were left "dangling", without serving the purpose they originally did. In this thread, the preposition "med" is an example of such. It often has a meaning outside the dictionary meanings. Consider these literal translations (your examples):
Det er knapt med tid - "It is scarce *of* time"
Det er rikelig med snø i vinter - "It is rich *in* snow during [this] winter" (i vinter = during the winter)
Det er bra med fisk i dette vannet - "It is well *of* fish in this water/lake"
Det er dårlig med ledige jobber for tida - "It is poor *in* vacant jobs at [this] time". 
As you can see, "med" can mean several different things in English [_This semantic drift of prepositions is fairly common in English as well. You can be *in* the street, when you are actually *on* it. You can travel *by* train, when you are in fact travelling *with* it etc._]


----------



## sjiraff

NorwegianNYC said:


> I understand. It is the _med_ that is the confusing part. Prepositions are notoriously confusing in almost any languages. The Germanic languages are very preposition "heavy", and historically, the prepositions were tied in with cases, and acted in a predictable pattern. When the case-system eroded away in languages such as Scandinavian and English, many prepositions were left "dangling", without serving the purpose they originally did. In this thread, the preposition "med" is an example of such. It often has a meaning outside the dictionary meanings. Consider these literal translations (your examples):
> Det er knapt med tid - "It is scarce *of* time"
> Det er rikelig med snø i vinter - "It is rich *in* snow during [this] winter" (i vinter = during the winter)
> Det er bra med fisk i dette vannet - "It is well *of* fish in this water/lake"
> Det er dårlig med ledige jobber for tida - "It is poor *in* vacant jobs at [this] time".
> As you can see, "med" can mean several different things in English [_This semantic drift of prepositions is fairly common in English as well. You can be *in* the street, when you are actually *on* it. You can travel *by* train, when you are in fact travelling *with* it etc._]



Good point, I usppose it's quite a flexible word in how it is used, rather than saying in your example "Bra mengder fisk" it's shortened to "bra med fisk".

But what would you say ""Det er kult med  alt som er gratis" means? It's not a quantity, so is this part of the same thing? I don't know if it means "alt som er gratis er kult", and if so why it would be worded how it is

Thanks!


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Yes, your two examples can be rewritten that way.


----------



## sjiraff

NorwegianNYC said:


> Yes, your two examples can be rewritten that way.



Is there any reason why someone would say "Det er kult med alt som er gratis" over just "Alt som er gratis er kult"?

Can you say this with anything, like "Det er nyttig med alt som er slitesterkt" maybe? Or I don't know, "Det er varmt med alt som er ullent"?

Thanks!


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Emphasis. Let me illustrate by giving a different example. "I am flying to Paris today" and "Today I am flying to Paris" conveys the same information and both are grammatically sound. However, the latter points out "today" over "I", and thereby introduces the listener/reader to a shift in emphasis.


----------



## sjiraff

NorwegianNYC said:


> Emphasis. Let me illustrate by giving a different example. "I am flying to Paris today" and "Today I am flying to Paris" conveys the same information and both are grammatically sound. However, the latter points out "today" over "I", and thereby introduces the listener/reader to a shift in emphasis.



Ahh I see, so I can say something like "Det er nyttig med øvelse"?

Thanks


----------



## raumar

sjiraff said:


> Ahh I see, so I can say something like "Det er nyttig med øvelse"?



That's right! 



sjiraff said:


> Ahh I see, so maybe something like "Det er forbudt med jakt" might work, meaning "Det er forbudt _å jakte_"?



To return to one of your earlier questions: Yes, "det er forbudt med jakt" can be used. 

NorwegianNYC is right in pointing out that the difference between the examples in your post #15 is emphasis. But in this case, "Det er forbudt med jakt" is more informal, probably used more in spoken Norwegian than in written language. In a legal document on hunting restrictions, I think you would find "Jakt er forbudt".


----------



## raumar

sjiraff said:


> Can you say this with anything, like "Det er nyttig med alt som er slitesterkt" maybe? Or I don't know, "Det er varmt med alt som er ullent"?



I forgot to mention that you can't say "Det er varmt med alt som er ullent". "Ullen" does not mean "made of wool"; it is used figuratively (vague, ambiguous). But "Det er varmt med ull" is fine.


----------



## sjiraff

Hello everyone
Thanks for clearing that up Raumar I did see your posts but have had a hectic week lately



raumar said:


> That's right!
> 
> 
> 
> To return to one of your earlier questions: Yes, "det er forbudt med jakt" can be used.
> 
> NorwegianNYC is right in pointing out that the difference between the  examples in your post #15 is emphasis. But in this case, "Det er forbudt  med jakt" is more informal, probably used more in spoken Norwegian than  in written language. In a legal document on hunting restrictions, I  think you would find "Jakt er forbudt".


Well that is good to know, now when I think on it I've only heard these kinds of things spoken rather than written. In that case I wonder, would you ever say it more generally, maybe if someone is stealing towels from a hotel-room, could you say 

"Det er ulovlig med det du gjør nå!" instead of "Det du gjør nå er ulovlig" or something, meaning to say like "What you are doing, is illegal" to describe the actions someone does?




raumar said:


> I forgot to mention that you can't say "Det er varmt med alt som er ullent". "Ullen" does not mean "made of wool"; it is used figuratively (vague, ambiguous). But "Det er varmt med ull" is fine.



Ah thanks, I think in English "wooly" has just become how we say "of wool" now.


----------



## raumar

sjiraff said:


> Well that is good to know, now when I think on it I've only heard these kinds of things spoken rather than written. In that case I wonder, would you ever say it more generally, maybe if someone is stealing towels from a hotel-room, could you say
> 
> "Det er ulovlig med det du gjør nå!" instead of "Det du gjør nå er ulovlig" or something, meaning to say like "What you are doing, is illegal" to describe the actions someone does?



It is difficult to say anything definite about informal usage. At least I will not try to do that -- others may be able to give you a better answer. But in my opinion, this is a bit too informal. I prefer either "Det er ulovlig *å gjøre* det du gjør nå" or your other option, "Det du gjør nå er ulovlig".


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> It is difficult to say anything definite about informal usage. At least I will not try to do that -- others may be able to give you a better answer. But in my opinion, this is a bit too informal. I prefer either "Det er ulovlig *å gjøre* det du gjør nå" or your other option, "Det du gjør nå er ulovlig".



Good to know, and now I can stop people from stealing towels from hotels in Norway in a proper manner.

Thanks Raumar and everyone in this thread for the explainations!


----------

