# Norwegian: "sin" vs "hans, hennes"



## BrMo

Hi all,

I was kinda surprised to see this has never come up here before (did a search).

I'm talking about the difference in use between the (most common) Norwegian possesive pronouns "Sin, si, sitt, sine" on the one hand and "hans, hennes" on the other.


My confusion stems from two things:

1) Not finding a source that properly explains how these pronouns are used (imo). Many sources approach this differently or only partially.

2) Having studied a year of Swedish. 


Now, what I already understand is that "sin, etc" are used when that what is owned, is owned by the subject of the sentence.

For example:

"Olav vasker bilen sin" Olav washes his car

"Hans, hennes" is used when the owned object is not owned by the subject of the sentence.

For example:

"Olav vasker bilen hans" Olav washes his car (the car is owned by Martin).

Thus far, this main rule is 100 % clear to me and it doesn't cause me any problems, although my native language doesn't make this distinction.


Another aspect of the possesive pronouns in Norwegians however is less clear.

Does the main rule apply when the owned subject is the grammatical subject of the sentence?

1) Is "Bilen sin er hvit" a correct sentence? Or are you in this case obliged to say "Bilen hans er hvit" ? If I remember correctly, this is the case in Swedish (I could be mistaken though) and I'm reading conflicting things on Norwegian in various sources.

2) *If *you are obliged "hans" instead of "sin" when the owned object is the grammatical subject of the sentence, do you say "Det er bilen sin" or "Det er bilen hans" (if the car is in fact his and not someone else's)?


I hope I made myself somewhat clear. Thanks.


----------



## myšlenka

Hi,
_sin si_ etc are reflexive third person pronouns. The property "reflexive" means that they need a reference (a noun, name, pronoun) and there is a grammatical requirement that the reference is in the same sentence.

1) _Bilen sin er hvit_. 
This one doesn't work because _sin_ has no reference in the same sentence. You have to use _hans/hennes/deres._
2) _*Det er bilen sin_. 
This one doesn't work because _sin _has no reference in the same sentence. You have to use _hans/hennes/deres._

*Although, there is a grammatical version of this, but with a very particular meaning.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Only to build on what myslenka already said: The whole purpose of the (quite wonderful invention of) reflexive possessives is that the subject does something (verb) to an object that belong to the subject. If you look at the (English) sentence_ she is driving her car_, the sentence in ambiguous. Whose care is it? We know it is a female person's car, but not much more. Reflexive possessives adds an element of certainty. In _hun kjører bilen hennes_ she is clearly driving someone (female) else's car, but it is not her own. However, in _hun kjører bilen sin_ we know that she is driving HER OWN car.

Therefore, _bilen sin er hvit_ will not work, since reflexive possessives can only go with an object. As long as he/she is not a part of the sentence we cannot use _sin/si/sitt/sine_ since they are reflexives, and need to reflect back on something. Also, _det er bilen sin_ will not work (for other than an idiomatic meaning myslenka was alluding to) since _det er bilen_ is the subject (a predicate), and there is no object in the sentence.


----------



## BrMo

Tusen takk til dere 

Makes absolute sense now.

There is one more thing though, which has to do with the subordinate clause.

For instance:

"Olav hilser Per, som er broren *sin/hans*, og starter å lage mat."

The lack of reference is gone now, so my guess is you could use "sin" now, but I'm not sure.


----------



## myšlenka

BrMo said:


> There is one more thing though, which has to do with the subordinate clause.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> "Olav hilser Per, som er broren *sin/hans*, og starter å lage mat."
> 
> The lack of reference is gone now, so my guess is you could use "sin" now, but I'm not sure.


Hi,
_som_ introduces a new sentence, but the reflexive pronouns need a reference within the same sentence. Thus, you can only use *hans* in this context.


----------



## Alxmrphi

BrMo said:


> "Olav hilser Per, som er broren *sin/hans*, og starter å lage mat."
> 
> The lack of reference is gone now, so my guess is you could use "sin" now, but I'm not sure.


I remember reading you can *only* use _sin_ in the same clause; subordinate clauses break any opportunity to use sin again.
The natives can tell you for sure, but I do remember that from a grammar book I read.

(Oops, hadn't seen myslenka's post when I wrote this!)


----------



## BrMo

myšlenka said:


> Hi,
> _som_ introduces a new sentence, but the reflexive pronouns need a reference within the same sentence. Thus, you can only use *hans* in this context.



Takk igjen!


----------



## BrMo

Ok, jeg lurer på enda en ting 

Hva er den idiomatiske betydningen av "det er bilen sin" ?

Takk på forhånd!


----------



## Ben Jamin

The principles described here by Norwegian NYC and Myslenka refer to a correct Norwegian language as used by a group of people reflecting about how they write and speak. If you read newspapers (both paper editions and on Internet) you will notice that there is a complete confusion. Most of writers in the mentioned media follow no rules, using "sin" where "hans/hennes" should be used, and even using "hans/hennes" in reflexive positions. As a result you never know if the correct reflexive meaning was intended or not. 
Sentences of the type "Politiet kjørte ham til leiligheten sin" are more a rule than an exception.

Try to google "Per Egil Hegge" and "sin", and you'll find  very good comments on the wrong usage.


----------



## myšlenka

BrMo said:


> Hva er den idiomatiske betydningen av "det er bilen sin" ?


Det betyr at bilen er eksemplarisk på en eller annen måte. Jeg ville ha lagt til et ekstra _det_ på slutten av setningen: _det er bilen sin det._
Konstruksjonen er forøvrig ikke begrenset til biler: _Det er gutten sin det. Det er huset sitt det._


----------



## myšlenka

@BrMo,
 I just thought of another use of the reflexive possessives that you might want to know about. It's referred to as "garpegenitiv" and is one of the ways to express possessive relations in third person. However, it is more common in spoken language than in written language. 

A: _Er dette huset ditt?
_B: _Nei, det er Kristine sitt (hus)._


----------



## BrMo

Tusen takk!


----------



## Ben Jamin

myšlenka said:


> @BrMo,
> I just thought of another use of the reflexive possessives that you might want to know about. It's referred to as "garpegenitiv" and is one of the ways to express possessive relations in third person. However, it is more common in spoken language than in written language.
> 
> A: _Er dette huset ditt?
> _B: _Nei, det er Kristine sitt (hus)._


It is most likely the "garpegenitiv" that has caused the confusion. Now the word "sin/sitt" is used in at least three different meanings:
1. As a correct reflexive possessive pronoun: *Han *tok *sin *hatt og gikk.
2. As a correct (at least orally) "garpegenitiv" : Dette er *Per sin *hatt.
3. As an incorrect reflexive possessive pronoun: *Politiet *kjørte Per til huset *sitt *(meaning: "til Per's house").
A reflexive possessive pronoun refers always to the agent in the sentence (grammatical subject) while the "garpegenitiv" refers to the last noun mentioned in the sentence.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

"Sin/si/sitt/sine" is not "garpegenitiv" _per se_. They are reflexive possessives - such as min, di and deres. That being said, "garpegenitiv is an interesting construct. Norwegian has three ways of expressing possessive:
1) Det er Annes bok
2) Det er boka til Anne
3) Det er Anne si bok.

(1) Is he traditional form using the possessive -s (genitive), like in English. This form is increasingly rare both in writing and, especially, in spoken Norwegian, and often considered to be a "dated" form.
(2) The prepositional possessive uses a preposition ("til" is perhaps the more common) to indicate relationship -not unlike English "of" or Romance "de".
(3) "Garpegenitiv" is a hybrid form. It is a return to the "noun-first" syntax, but the possessive-s is replaced by a reflexive possessive determiner. What makes this form interesting, is that its popularity (especially in spoken language) is probably due to phonetics. As the possessive-s is dying or vanished in spoken language, it is replaces by a monosyllabic s-word (sin/si/sitt/sine) that in a way sounds like the lost -s-, but is actually a proper word. Since the reflexive possessive determiners were already applied to similar to similar constructs, such as "hun leser boka si", it was only a small leap for the reflexive possessive determiners to become a genuine possessive form.


----------



## Ben Jamin

NorwegianNYC said:


> "Sin/si/sitt/sine" is not "garpegenitiv" _per se_. They are reflexive possessives - such as min, di and deres. That being said, "garpegenitiv is an interesting construct. Norwegian has three ways of expressing possessive:
> 1) Det er Annes bok
> 2) Det er boka til Anne
> 3) Det er Anne si bok.
> 
> (1) Is he traditional form using the possessive -s (genitive), like in English. This form is increasingly rare both in writing and, especially, in spoken Norwegian, and often considered to be a "dated" form.
> (2) The prepositional possessive uses a preposition ("til" is perhaps the more common) to indicate relationship -not unlike English "of" or Romance "de".
> (3) "Garpegenitiv" is a hybrid form. It is a return to the "noun-first" syntax, but the possessive-s is replaced by a reflexive possessive determiner. What makes this form interesting, is that its popularity (especially in spoken language) is probably due to phonetics. As the possessive-s is dying or vanished in spoken language, it is replaces by a monosyllabic s-word (sin/si/sitt/sine) that in a way sounds like the lost -s-, but is actually a proper word. Since the reflexive possessive determiners were already applied to similar to similar constructs, such as "hun leser boka si", it was only a small leap for the reflexive possessive determiners to become a genuine possessive form.


I never claimed that "sin/sitt" is the "garpegenitiv" per se, but it is used in a construction that is called garpegenitiv. But I will argue that used as in your example 3 it is still a "reflexive possessive". "Sin/sitt" used in a "garpegenitiv" construction loses its reflexive role in the sentence (relation to the agent), and becomes a loose possessive suffix. Reflexiveness requires a relation to the subject of the sentence, a "reflexive possessive" can't be related to an object in a sentence, or another part of a sentence that is not a subject, which is illustrated in my example no. 3 in #13.

In this way "sin/sitt" actually represents two different, but homophone, parts of speech.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Hi Ben,

And I did not claim you claimed it!  I was just furnishing this conversation with more info.

As for my Ex.3 in #14: Examples of "garpegenitiv" such as: _Lars sin bil, partiet sitt forslag, landet sin administrasjon _shows that the reflexive (sin/si/sitt/sine) does not lose its reflexive properties. The sentence _Det er Lars sin bil_ is the same as _bilen er Lars sin,_ and in both of them the determiner acts with both possessive and reflexive properties. However, it does not have the same property as in _Lars kjører bilen sin_. The reason it is being used as a possessive marker is because of its reflexive properties, but again, it is not a full-fledge reflexive


----------



## Ben Jamin

NorwegianNYC said:


> Hi Ben,
> 
> And I did not claim you claimed it!  I was just furnishing this conversation with more info.
> 
> As for my Ex.3 in #14: Examples of "garpegenitiv" such as: _Lars sin bil, partiet sitt forslag, landet sin administrasjon _shows that the reflexive (sin/si/sitt/sine) does not lose its reflexive properties. The sentence _Det er Lars sin bil_ is the same as _bilen er Lars sin,_ and in both of them the determiner acts with both possessive and reflexive properties. However, it does not have the same property as in _Lars kjører bilen sin_. The reason it is being used as a possessive marker is because of its reflexive properties, but again, it is not a full-fledge reflexive


I think we should check the definition of "reflexive". I have always believed that "reflexive" in "reflexive possessive pronoun" means "referring to the agent", but may be I am wrong. Have you any sources to check?

In my understanding, in the sentence "Lars kjører sin bil" *sin *is reflexive because it denotes that the car belongs to the agent (Lars som kjører).
In the sentence "Dette er Lars sin bil" we have no agent, and therefore no reflexive action is possible. There is no action either, "er" is a verb denoting having a  quality. The word "sin" has the same function as *hans *in the sentence "Dette er *hans *bil". Is "hans" a reflexive pronoun?

Moreover, I believe that *sin *in a garpegenitiv construction is not a pronoun either. It is a possession marker, just like "-s" ending. A pronoun, as the name suggests can be used instead of a noun. In the sentence "Dette er Lars sin bil" you can't skip the noun "Lars" and use only "sin" instead, while in the sentence "Lars kjører sin bil" *sin *is a pronoun that makes it possible to skip the noun "Lars", so we can avoid a fussy sentence like: "Lars kjører Lars' bil".


----------



## BrMo

What's interesting is that this "gargegenitiv" also exists in Dutch, my native language.

"Dette er Lars *sin* bil" 

could be translated (in Dutch) as:

"Dit is Lars *zijn* auto"


----------



## Cerb

Just out of interest, is the last sentence considered grammatically correct in bokmål?



			
				NorwegianNYC said:
			
		

> Det er Anne si bok.



I can imagine it spoken, but not in an Oslo dialect or bokmål. I'm fine with this structure for any masculine or neuter noun, but mi/si only sound ok to when they appear at the end ("boka mi/si"). I can't really come up with a good reason for this, but I can't remember seeing it written any other way, even when the possessive is stressed for emphasis.

< ... >


----------



## NorwegianNYC

We do not disagree, Ben Jamin. When I say it has reflexive properties, I am not saying it is a full-out reflexive determiner. In _han kjører bilen sin_ it is a genuine reflexive possessive determiner, and in _dette er bilen hans_, the possessive determiner has no reflexive properties at all. However, in _bilen er Lars sin_ or _det er Lars sin bil_, which again are primarily possessives, there is a secondary reflexive function. Take the ungrammatical, yet commonly heard _det er min sin_. Here the literal translation into English is "it is mine his/her own". In the same manner, _det er Lars sin bil_ will literally be rendered "it is Lars his-own car". Therefore, this is not only a possessive marker, it is a possessive marker with am inherent reflexive function.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Cerb said:


> Just out of interest, is the last sentence considered grammatically correct in bokmål?
> 
> I can imagine it spoken, but not in an Oslo dialect or bokmål. I'm fine with this structure for any masculine or neuter noun, but mi/si only sound ok to when they appear at the end ("boka mi/si"). I can't really come up with a good reason for this, but I can't remember seeing it written any other way, even when the possessive is stressed for emphasis.


 This particular kind of possessive is non-standard in bokmål, but the construct itself is perfectly fine. Both bokmål and the dialekts in the Oslo-area are 3-gender dialects. As a matter of fact, only 11% of the residents in the greater Oslo-area spoke with a 2-gender system. The interesting thing is that while it is called *en jakke*, it is still *jakka* in definite from. Also, most speakers used the phrase *det er jakka mi*, and only very few would say *det er jakken min*. A 2-gender system in Oslo is largely a myth, but it is true that almost 80% preferred to use the 2-gender system in writing. The only place in Norway with a 2-gender system is Bergen.


----------



## Cerb

I was thinking more about the word order. Placing "si" or "mi" any other place than at the end sounds off to me, but I guess it probably just has to do with my dialect. It's very rare to see in writing as well, but I do know people that live some time outside Oslo (Buskerud, at the top of my head) that will use phrases like that as well as "hu si" instead of "hennes". 

Der er Anne sitt hus 
Det er Anne sin bil 
Det er Anne si bok 
Det er boka mi


----------



## NorwegianNYC

_Det er Anne si bok_ is perfectly fine. It is the feminine form (the way _sin_ is masculine and _sitt_ is neuter)


----------



## Cerb

Yes, definitely just an issue in my dialect. Thanks!


----------



## Ben Jamin

What do you think about the use of sin in this sentence?

“En *mann* fra X innrømmer å ha slått naboen da han fant denne i seng med *sin* samboer”. 
Does *sin *refer to to "mann fra X" here according to the rules?


----------



## raumar

I have to admit that I was in doubt about this -- until I read Per Egil Hegge's language column in _Aftenposten_, which is the source for your example: http://www.aftenposten.no/spraak/ , see "sin og sitt". 

Some of the examples that Hegge mention are obviously wrong (and quite funny). But this case is less obvious (at least to me); Hegge explains that "denne" is the subject and the verb is only implicit (which means that "sin" is wrong). I agree that the distinction between "sin" and "hans/hennes" usually creates clarity. But when sentences are complex, this distinction may create confusion rather than clarity. Ben, you have previously mentioned how native speakers instinctively get the language right without knowing the rules. But when it comes to "sin vs hans/hennes" distinction in complex sentences, this instinct does not always work. It is easy to make mistakes, also for native speakers.


----------



## Ben Jamin

raumar said:


> I have to admit that I was in doubt about this -- until I read Per Egil Hegge's language column in _Aftenposten_, which is the source for your example: http://www.aftenposten.no/spraak/ , see "sin og sitt".
> 
> Some of the examples that Hegge mention are obviously wrong (and quite funny). But this case is less obvious (at least to me); Hegge explains that "denne" is the subject and the verb is only implicit (which means that "sin" is wrong). I agree that the distinction between "sin" and "hans/hennes" usually creates clarity. But when sentences are complex, this distinction may create confusion rather than clarity. Ben, you have previously mentioned how native speakers instinctively get the language right without knowing the rules. But when it comes to "sin vs hans/hennes" distinction in complex sentences, this instinct does not always work. It is easy to make mistakes, also for native speakers.


I wrote a mail to Per Egil Hegge pointing out that the quoted sentence conformed perfectly to the rule that ”Når eiendomspronomenet viser tilbake på et subjekt i tredje person, skal det være sin”". I got an answer that made me confused, in which he stated that the rule didn't apply to that sentence, that the sentence had two subjects, one grammatical and one logical (hidden) and that ity was the author of the sentence's intention to relate "sin" to this logical subject, which was wrong. I am not a professional linguist, and maybe he is right, but the whole explanation doesn't appear convincing to me. I always use the rule "Når eiendomspronomenet viser tilbake på et subjekt i tredje person, skal det være sin”. In addition I never use "sin" in subordinated or independent clauses where the possesion relates to the subject of main sentence, and never when a comparison is involved "Han er høyere enn sin bror", because I interpret the rule as "the subject must be "acting" upon or be acted on by the object  to allow the use of reflexive possessive" ("Per hilser broren sin" or "Per ble hilst av broren sin".). There is no such action when comparing height.


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> I wrote a mail to Per Egil Hegge pointing out that the quoted sentence conformed perfectly to the rule that ”Når eiendomspronomenet viser tilbake på et subjekt i tredje person, skal det være sin”. I got an answer that made me confused, in which he stated that the rule didn't apply to that sentence, that the sentence had two subjects, one grammatical and one logical (hidden) and that it was the author of the sentence's intention to relate "sin" to this logical subject, which was wrong. I am not a professional linguist, and maybe he is right, but the whole explanation doesn't appear convincing to me.


The phenomenon is referred to as small clauses in the literature and a typical characteristic of them is that they lack functional features found in finite clauses (e.g. tense, copula)

[...] da [_han_]s [fant [denne]s [i seng med sin samboer]predicate.]predicate

_Han_ is the subject of the matrix predicate while _denne_ is the subject of the small clause predicate _i seng med sin samboer._ So when Hegge says that we have two subjects in this case, he is right (I would interpret the sentence the same way as he does). In these cases, nominal expressions containing _sin_ can be subjects:
- _de så barna sine leke._
- _hun vil ha huset sitt stort.
- han nøs servietten sin av bordet._

Thus, the rule (normative perhaps) is that reflexives are bound by the closest subject within a finite phrase.



Ben Jamin said:


> In addition I never use "sin" in subordinated or independent clauses where the possesion relates to the subject of main sentence, and never when a comparison is involved "Han er høyere enn sin bror", because I interpret the rule as "the subject must be "acting" upon or be acted on by the object  to allow the use of reflexive possessive" ("Per hilser broren sin" or "Per ble hilst av broren sin".). There is no such action when comparing height.


What about _han er hjemme med kona si_? How does this differ from comparatives with respect to "acting"? As far as I can see, there is no action involved.


----------



## Ben Jamin

myšlenka said:


> What about _han er hjemme med kona si_? How does this differ from comparatives with respect to "acting"? As far as I can see, there is no action involved.



"Han er" is a verb, and a predicate in the sentence. The action of "being at home" is a grammatical action, even if being somewhere does not involve an activity in a common sense. The activity of being somewhere with somebody can also be interpreted as an action directed (grammatically) towards somebody.


----------



## Ben Jamin

myšlenka said:


> The phenomenon is referred to as small clauses in the literature and a typical characteristic of them is that they lack functional features found in finite clauses (e.g. tense, copula)
> 
> [...] da [_han_]s [fant [denne]s [i seng med sin samboer]predicate.]predicate
> 
> _Han_ is the subject of the matrix predicate while _denne_ is the subject of the small clause predicate _i seng med sin samboer._ So when Hegge says that we have two subjects in this case, he is right (I would interpret the sentence the same way as he does). In these cases, nominal expressions containing _sin_ can be subjects:
> - _de så barna sine leke._
> - _hun vil ha huset sitt stort._
> _- han nøs servietten sin av bordet._



But can a subject be in a "non nominative" position in a sentence? In inflected languages "denne" would be in accusative, and the substantive itself treated as an object, not as a subject: " han fant *denne* ...".

"Jeg fant an krone liggende på fortauet" has only one subject, one object, and an attribute describing the object, at least in my understanding.



myšlenka said:


> Thus, the rule (normative perhaps) is that reflexives are bound by the *closest* subject within a finite phrase.



*This* is the idea of sentences like "Politiet kjørte ham til leiligheten sin" which is qualified by Hegge as incorrect.


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> "Han er" is a verb, and a predicate in the sentence. The action of "being at home" is a grammatical action, even if being somewhere does not involve an activity in a common sense. The activity of being somewhere with somebody can also be interpreted as an action directed (grammatically) towards somebody.


And the action of "being taller" couldn't be an activity in the same sense? I'm sorry but the distinction between _to be_ (activity) and _to be_ (non-activity) makes no sense.


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> But can a subject be in a "non nominative" position in a sentence? In inflected languages "denne" would be in accusative, and the substantive itself treated as an object, not as a subject: " han fant *denne* ...".


Using the term 'subject' about this was imprecise. Subjecthood isn't necessarily the same thing as nominative case (Icelandic has dative subjects) or semantic roles. In _I heard him sing_, no one would deny that _him_ is the agent of the verb 'sing' in spite of being in a non-nominative case.


----------



## Ben Jamin

myšlenka said:


> Using the term 'subject' about this was imprecise. Subjecthood isn't necessarily the same thing as nominative case (Icelandic has dative subjects) or semantic roles. In _I heard him sing_, no one would deny that _him_ is the agent of the verb 'sing' in spite of being in a non-nominative case.


But "I" remains the grammatical subject of the sentence.


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> But "I" remains the grammatical subject of the sentence.


Yes, beyond doubt.


----------



## Dan2

myšlenka said:


> In _I heard him sing_, no one would deny that _him_ is the agent of the verb 'sing' in spite of being in a non-nominative case.





Ben Jamin said:


> But "I" remains the grammatical subject of the sentence.


Yes, "I" is the subject of the highest-level clause, but not because "him" is NOT a subject. The status of the agent of "sing" is irrelevant to the grammatical status of "I".  If we change the sentence to, "I heard that he sang", the 3rd-person pronoun is (in addition to remaining agent) now grammatically nominative and the grammatical subject of a clause, but nothing has changed with respect to "I". (I don't disagree with anything you've said, Ben Jamin, but I think it's worthwhile being explicit about this.)

English has something like the "sin" vs "hans"/"henne" distinction:
_Peter liker hans bil = Peter likes his car
Peter liker sin bil = Peter likes his own car
_(And analogously with "her" and "their".)
But the "own" is optional, making the first English sentence ambiguous.  If we now decide to use "own" whenever it's _possible _to use it in the desired meaning, then we can make the same kinds of judgments that people have been discussing for Norwegian.  For ex., if the desired meaning is "Peter heard Bill sing Bill's song", we would say, "Peter heard Bill sing his own song", since "own" is possible in this sentence, in spite of the fact that Bill is grammatically accusative and not a subject; the fact that it's an agent is apparently sufficient to trigger "his own".

Now in an English analog to the Per Egil Hegge sentence (I've made a couple of changes to make it more natural),
_Smith admits having killed his neighbor when Smith found the neighbor in bed with his (own) wife_
"own" forces the (presumably) undesired reading of "with the neighbor's wife" (I _think_; this is a difficult judgment).  Again, altho "neighbor" is grammatically an accusative non-subject, its agenthood seems to be sufficient to mean that "own" will refer back to it, and not further back to the nearest _grammatical _subject (Smith).

But what raumar said about Norwegian hans/sin is also true with respect to English "his" vs "his own": the distinction is helpful in simple sentences, but when the syntax gets sufficiently complicated, judgments can be difficult.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Dan2 said:


> _Smith admits having killed his neighbor when Smith found the neighbor in bed with his (own) wife._



The English sentence is still ambiguous, isn't it?


----------



## Dan2

Well as I said, WITH "own" I find the most natural reading to be "neighbor in bed with neighbor's wife" (even tho it is then not the classic "murder by a jealous husband").  To force the meaning "with Smith's wife" we should omit the "own".

In general, sentences without "own" tend to be ambiguous (for ex., "Bill likes his car"), but under the rules I suggested (to make English more like traditional Norwegian), where you _must _use "own" if it's _possible _to use it, then the sentence without "own" would mean that the neighbor is in bed with Smith's wife (actually, with _anyone's_ wife except the neighbor's own wife, if the context supports a third person).

All that being said, the judgments are difficult in the case of complex sentences, and you would likely get conflicting answers if you asked random people for their immediate reaction to sentences like this one.


----------



## gramse

This remark is probably out of place, but is there the same tendency in Norway as in Sweden that native speakers of the last two generations no longer understand or use "sin, sitt, sina"? Of course, middle-aged and older people like myself are appalled and think it's a pity, but again many modern west European languages can manage without "sin, sitt, sina". I think the main reason for dropping "sin, sitt, sina" is that young people in Sweden have read more English books than Swedish, in school and elsewhere.


----------



## Ben Jamin

gramse said:


> This remark is probably out of place, but is there the same tendency in Norway as in Sweden that native speakers of the last two generations no longer understand or use "sin, sitt, sina"? Of course, middle-aged and older people like myself are appalled and think it's a pity, but again many modern west European languages can manage without "sin, sitt, sina". I think the main reason for dropping "sin, sitt, sina" is that young people in Sweden have read more English books than Swedish, in school and elsewhere.


I didn't know that the same process has ocurred in Swedish.
This phenomenon might have been just registered by linguists as a part of evolution process of a language, if it hadn't caused a lot of confusion and impaired written communication. This is a clear example of "linguistic change" to the worse: the language became mor ambiguous. Many linguists deny that there can be any change to the worse in a  language, but this is a proof that this can happen.


----------

