# NORWEGIAN: mottatte dokument vs. mottatte dokumentet



## Kiedis

Hello.

I often see Norwegians using definite form of adjective with indefinite form of noun. For example, if an email was sent with some attached document, they would reply:

_Viser til motatt*e* faktura_

I don't understand why only adjective is in definite form while the noun remains indefinite. Since both parties already know what kind of document is being referred to, I would write _Viser til motatt*e* faktura*en *_OR _Viser til *den* motatt*e* faktura*en*._

Or if some email was sent in response to enquiries, the usual reply is:

_Takk for svar_

Why not _Takk for svar_*et *? If you are thanking for the answer which was given in the previous email, i.e. you are referring to the information already known for both parties, then I would use definite form, like in English - Thanks for the answer.

I do realize I cannot blindly rely on English rules when trying to decide if some Norwegian phrase should contain definite or indefinite article but phrases like _motatt*e* faktura _seems to me not to be based on any grammatical rule but rather the flow of language or something else, I don't know.

Any comments?

Thank you.


----------



## Svenke

_den mottatte fakturaen_ is fine. 

_Takk for svaret_ is also fine.

I guess the shorter expressions are primarily just that: short and easy.

Svenke


----------



## Ben Jamin

Kiedis said:


> _Takk for svar  -  _Why not _Takk for svar_*et *? .



I have a feeling that "_Takk for svar" and "Takk for svaret" _may be not intended to mean the same. 
_Takk for svar _can be used when you just are grateful because somebody was so kind as to answer.
_Takk for svaret_ can be used when you are grateful for getting this particular answer, and not any other.
This may be not a formalized meaning, but some people may think about this distinction.


----------



## raumar

Regarding "Takk for svar": I agree with Ben Jamin - that is a good point. 

"Viser til mottatte faktura" is short and easy, but that may not be the whole explanation. That does not really explain why we can write "_Viser til mottatt*e* faktura_", or even "_... mottatt faktura_", while no native speaker would use Kiedis' alternative "_Viser til mottatt*e* faktura*en*_".



Kiedis said:


> I don't understand why only adjective is in definite form while the noun remains indefinite.



I can't say for certain why this is the case here. But we should remember that even though double definiteness is the main rule in Norwegian, exceptions are not unusual. See, for example, this thread: 
Norwegian: Den gode nabo -- why not naboen?

This is just a guess, but "Viser til mottatte faktura" might be a shortened version of "Jeg viser til den mottatte faktura". The complete sentence is old-fashioned today, when we would write "... _faktura*en*_", but the old pattern may have survived in the shortened phrase.


----------



## Kiedis

raumar said:


> no native speaker would use Kiedis' alternative "_Viser til mottatt*e* faktura*en*_".


Raumar, is it a hard and fast rule, i.e. that we cannot have a _definite adjective + definite noun_ without the preceding *den/det*? 

For example, I cannot say "Jeg leste et utdrag fra mye *omtalte boka*", I must put *den *in front of *mye omtalte boka*. And I guess I can say "Jeg leste et utdrag fra mye *omtalte bok*" (based on the example with _mottatte faktura_). Am I right?


----------



## raumar

I'm afraid that it doesn't work that way, Kiedis.

First, "_Viser til motatte faktura"_ is not a complete sentence. As you can see, the subject is also dropped. It is a kind of "telegram style", which is used in, for example, newspaper headlines. Second, this is a kind of set phrase - a standard sentence found in business letters. You should not use this as an example for "normal" sentences. 

So, your sentence should be "_Jeg leste et utdrag fra den mye omtalte boka_". The other alternatives does not really work. This sentence is more likely to be found in written than in spoken Norwegian, since "_den mye omtalte_" is a rather formal construction.


----------



## tewlwolow

Remember that the "weak form" of the adjective also follows possesive pronouns, as in: _min_ _ny*e* bok, hans* lille *hus_ etc. In this case, you do *not* use den/det/de.

edit: whoops!


----------



## raumar

tewlwolow said:


> Remember that the "weak form" of the adjective also follows possesive pronouns, as in: _min_ _ny*e* bok*a*, hans* lille *hus*et*_ etc. In this case, you do *not* use den/det/de.



Well, this is not quite correct. You have to write "min nye bok"/"hans lille hus" - double definiteness does not work here. Or, alternatively "den nye boka mi"/"det lille huset hans". 

Having said that, I think this is a good point. "Viser til mottatte faktura" may be understood as a short version of "Jeg viser til min mottatte faktura".


----------



## tewlwolow

It's not double definiteness, but weak form usage, correct. I erred in using the definite forms, of course - please do forgive me!


----------

