# Norwegian: å gå på restaurant for



## saverius

Hello everyone, this is the first post of mine in this awesome forum.

In Arve Moen's _Barfrost_, there is a sentence: "De hadde ingen penger å gå på restaurant for." Could anyone explain to me what is the role of the last "for"? Because in English, the sentence may be written as "They had no money to go to (a) restaurant.", which makes sense perfectly without a "for".

Thank you in advance~


----------



## Ben Jamin

It ma be easier to understand if you alter the sentence: "De hadde penger *fo*r å gå på restaurant". "for" expresses purpose: "what they needed the money for".


----------



## saverius

Ben Jamin said:


> It ma be easier to understand if you alter the sentence: "De hadde penger *fo*r å gå på restaurant". "for" expresses purpose: "what they needed the money for".



Ah that seems right! But why is it put at the last place of the sentence? Is it a style of writing or something?


----------



## Ben Jamin

saverius said:


> Ah that seems right! But why is it put at the last place of the sentence? Is it a style of writing or something?


It is stylistic. I think that most people would say today "De hadde ingen penger for å gå på restaurant." To me the sentence is somewhat bookish.


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> It ma be easier to understand if you alter the sentence: "De hadde penger *fo*r å gå på restaurant". "for" expresses purpose: "what they needed the money for".





Ben Jamin said:


> It is stylistic. I think that most people would say today "De hadde ingen penger for å gå på restaurant." To me the sentence is somewhat bookish.


My gut feeling is that altering the sentence like that is not really possible. My guess is that the preposition _for_ is a stranded preposition whose complement is, in this case, _penger_. It is a lot clearer if you compare it to similar clefting constructions:

1a) Det er mange måter å bygge hus [_på [måter]_].
1b) [På mange måter] kan man bygge hus.
2a) De hadde penger å reise jorda rundt for [_for [penger]._
2b) [For mange penger] kan man reise jorda rundt.

Thus, it should not be confused with the construction _for å + inf - "_in order to". Besides, it wouldn't make sense structurally either as _for å + inf_ modifies the sentence as a whole and not just the object.
It is not stylistic at all then, but a question of syntax.


----------



## raumar

I agree with myšlenka, it should be "De hadde ingen penger å gå på restaurant for."

If we change the word order, I think we also should change the preposition: 
"De hadde ingen penger *til* å gå på restaurant."

Or, even better,
"De hadde* ikke* penger *til* å gå på restaurant."


----------



## saverius

myšlenka said:


> My gut feeling is that altering the sentence like that is not really possible. My guess is that the preposition _for_ is a stranded preposition whose complement is, in this case, _penger_. It is a lot clearer if you compare it to similar clefting constructions:
> 
> 1a) Det er mange måter å bygge hus [_på [måter]_].
> 1b) [På mange måter] kan man bygge hus.
> 2a) De hadde penger å reise jorda rundt for [_for [penger]._
> 2b) [For mange penger] kan man reise jorda rundt.
> 
> Thus, it should not be confused with the construction _for å + inf - "_in order to". Besides, it wouldn't make sense structurally either as _for å + inf_ modifies the sentence as a whole and not just the object.
> It is not stylistic at all then, but a question of syntax.



So are you suggesting the following interpretation?

For(in respect of/in the case of/as for) penger, de hadde ingen å gå på restaurant.

I seem to understand it a little better...


----------



## Svenke

myšlenka is right.

Compare your initial example with these ones:

Vil du ha [en stol å sitte på]?
Jeg kjøpte [en boks å ha skruer i].
Dette er [en god måte å bli frisk på].
Det er [et mål å strebe etter].
Du har [to timer å bestemme deg på].

In each case, the noun is followed by _å_ + infinitive. Later in the _å_-clause, there is a preposition without a complement. The complement is understood to be the same as the noun in front of _å_.

Svenke


----------



## saverius

Svenke said:


> myšlenka is right.
> 
> Compare your initial example with these ones:
> 
> Vil du ha [en stol å sitte på]?
> Jeg kjøpte [en boks å ha skruer i].
> Dette er [en god måte å bli frisk på].
> Det er [et mål å strebe etter].
> Du har [to timer å bestemme deg på].
> 
> In each case, the noun is followed by _å_ + infinitive. Later in the _å_-clause, there is a preposition without a complement. The complement is understood to be the same as the noun in front of _å_.
> 
> Svenke



All of the sentences you listed can be rewritten:

Vil du har en stol, på den du kan sitte?
Jeg kjøpte en boks, i den jeg kan har skruer.
...
Det er et mål, efter den man kan strebe.

But the sentence: De hadde ingen penger, for den de kunne gå på restaurant.

for penger is just wierd to me, I can't find a plausible definition of the usage of for here in dictionary, doesn't it make more sense to say med/ved/av penger?


----------



## Svenke

Prepositions are difficult to learn and teach.

I think the meaning of "for" here has to do with exchange. The restaurant (food and drink) is what you get in return for the money.

We say, for instance, "å få mye/lite igjen for pengene", 'to get much/little (in return) for the money'.

Svenke


----------



## myšlenka

saverius said:


> All of the sentences you listed can be rewritten:
> 
> Vil du har en stol, på den du kan sitte?
> Jeg kjøpte en boks, i den jeg kan har skruer.
> ...
> Det er et mål, efter den man kan strebe.


Yes, in principle they can be rewritten, but the result is often not very elegant and sounds clumsy.

_Vil du ha en stol? Den kan du sitte på.
Jeg kjøpte en boks. I den kan jeg ha skruer.
Det er et mål. Etter det kan man strebe._


saverius said:


> But the sentence: De hadde ingen penger, for den de kunne gå på restaurant.
> 
> for penger is just wierd to me, I can't find a plausible definition of the usage of for here in dictionary, doesn't it make more sense to say med/ved/av penger?


Maybe part of the confusion lies in the fact that it's _ingen penger_.
_De hadde ingen penger. For dem (?) kunne de gå på restaurant.
_
It could be easier to see if there was an actual sum of money.
_De gikk på restaurant for 3000 kroner._

In any case, the preposition _for_ needs to be there. Otherwise the sentence is incomplete.


----------



## saverius

Svenke said:


> Prepositions are difficult to learn and teach.
> 
> I think the meaning of "for" here has to do with exchange. The restaurant (food and drink) is what you get in return for the money.
> 
> We say, for instance, "å få mye/lite igjen for pengene", 'to get much/little (in return) for the money'.
> 
> Svenke





myšlenka said:


> Yes, in principle they can be rewritten, but the result is often not very elegant and sounds clumsy.
> 
> _Vil du ha en stol? Den kan du sitte på.
> Jeg kjøpte en boks. I den kan jeg ha skruer.
> Det er et mål. Etter det kan man strebe._
> 
> Maybe part of the confusion lies in the fact that it's _ingen penger_.
> _De hadde ingen penger. For dem (?) kunne de gå på restaurant.
> _
> It could be easier to see if there was an actual sum of money.
> _De gikk på restaurant for 3000 kroner._
> 
> In any case, the preposition _for_ needs to be there. Otherwise the sentence is incomplete.



thank you guys


----------

