Norwegian: adverbs

[sjiraff]

Hello everyone,

Forvirring slo til atter en gang!

I read in a book: Støvelen lå ensom på senga (Or something along those lines, but it's not really important for the example)

In another sentence in Ringenes Herre I read something along the lines of "Frodo sto taus ved stolen...." and again, I would have expected taust.

My question is, why is it ensom? I expected "ensomt", since it's just describing how they lay, in the same way we don't say "han oppførte seg god" but "Han oppførte seg godt" etc. But I've obviously misunderstood at some point or gone wrong somewhere!

Thanks

edit
Typo, I meant støvelen not støvlene!

 

[myšlenka]

Maybe because they aren't adverbs at all

 

[sjiraff]

Maybe because they aren't adverbs at all

Hmm, an adverb is a thing like "happily" and "slowly" and "quietly" right? I'm not entirely sure since it's barely touched apon here, but I thought if someone "står taus" then isn't that, stands quietly, making it an adverb? In the same way you say "Han går tregt" (walks slowly) not "han går treg" right?

 

[myšlenka]

Hmm, an adverb is a thing like "happily" and "slowly" and "quietly" right? I'm not entirely sure since it's barely touched apon here, but I thought if someone "står taus" then isn't that, stands quietly, making it an adverb? In the same way you say "Han går tregt" (walks slowly) not "han går treg" right?

The English translation needs an adverb, but that doesn't necessarily imply that the Norwegian construction uses an adverb

 

[sjiraff]

The English translation needs an adverb, but that doesn't necessarily imply that the Norwegian construction uses an adverb

Why isn't it an adverb? Like, what makes describing how someone stands or lies, compared to how someone behaves or walks?

 

[myšlenka]

Why isn't it an adverb? Like, what makes describing how someone stands or lies, compared to how someone behaves or walks?

Well, it's not an adverb because it's an adjective. It is describing støvlene/Frodo etc and not the verb.

 

[sjiraff]

Well, it's not an adverb because it's an adjective. It is describing støvlene/Frodo etc and not the verb.

But...how can you tell? Like, "He walks quietly" and "he stands quietly" seem the same to me apart from the verb is different, one is moving and one is still. But in norwegian you mean it would be, Han går taust, han står taus?

Is this because of the verbs or something else?

Thanks

 

[myšlenka]

But...how can you tell? Like, "He walks quietly" and "he stands quietly" seem the same to me apart from the verb is different, one is moving and one is still. But in norwegian you mean it would be, Han går taust, han står taus?

Is this because of the verbs or something else?

Thanks

Good question. I think it has to do with the semantics of the adjective and of the verb. In some cases, both the adverb and the adjective would work. However, the meaning of taus makes it hard to adverbalize. It means quiet in the sense of not speaking and that's hard to apply to verbs, but not impossible.

 

[sjiraff]

Good question. I think it has to do with the semantics of the adjective and of the verb. In some cases, both the adverb and the adjective would work. However, the meaning of taus makes it hard to adverbalize. It means quiet in the sense of not speaking and that's hard to apply to verbs, but not impossible.

But what about ensom? Is the rule that, anything after the verb "Stå" or "ligge" becomes to the gender of the noun?

(I should add I made a stupid typo and meant to put "støvelen" not "støvlene")

So you say, støvlene lå ensomme, støvelen lå ensom, antrekket lå ensomt?

Thanks

 

[myšlenka]

But what about ensom? Is the rule that, anything after the verb "Stå" or "ligge" becomes to the gender of the noun?

To be honest, I have never thought about this before. I don't know if there is a rule, but it seems more natural to ascribe properties like taus and ensom to persons/objects and not to verbs. I am trying to find an example where both adjective and adverb can be used and where there is a clear difference in meaning, but it's hard.

 

[sjiraff]

To be honest, I have never thought about this before. I don't know if there is a rule, but it seems more natural to ascribe properties like taus and ensom to persons/objects and not to verbs. I am trying to find an example where both adjective and adverb can be used and where there is a clear difference in meaning, but it's hard.

Another adjective I saw with it was noe "lå klar på gulvet" - it just crosses my wires a little, I mean I know already that with verbs like å smake and å lukte it always goes to the neuter (den smakte surt) even if with other verbs like føle it changes according to the gender of the noun (den føles myk).

I would have expected, den er klar, den ligger klart.

Would you also say, "De lå ensomme" or "det lå ensomt" for that matter?

 

[myšlenka]

Another adjective I saw with it was noe "lå klar på gulvet" - it just crosses my wires a little, I mean I know already that with verbs like å smake and å lukte it always goes to the neuter (den smakte surt) even if with other verbs like føle it changes according to the gender of the noun (den føles myk).

When you make an adverb from an adjective, it's always identical to the neuter form. With å lukte/smake it's clear that you need an adverb because you are describing the way something tastes or smells. With føles it is different because it's in the middle voice (I think) so an adverb wouldn't really describe the way something feels but rather the way something is felt.

I would have expected, den er klar, den ligger klart.

Would you also say, "De lå ensomme" or "det lå ensomt" for that matter?

I would say:
1) Den er klar.
2) Den ligger klar.

You are right about the ones for ensom.

 

[sjiraff]

When you make an adverb from an adjective, it's always identical to the neuter form. With å lukte/smake it's clear that you need an adverb because you are describing the way something tastes or smells. With føles it is different because it's in the middle voice (I think) so an adverb wouldn't really describe the way something feels but rather the way something is felt.

Ah yes that's a good point actually, and would kind of make sense how "føles" seems like "blir følt".

I would say:
1) Den er klar.
2) Den ligger klar.

You are right about the ones for ensom.[/QUOTE]

So you would also say:

Det er klart
Det ligger klart

In this case?

But,
Den ligger rart (as in, it's lying in a strange way) - is this correct?

I just had no clue that some adjectives would be treated differently, I wish I knew which ones obided by this rule and which ones didn't. "He stood quietly" to me seems like an adjective so I would always have assumed "Han står taust", so this would make me wonder, does one say "Det står taust" in such a case?

Thanks

 

[sjiraff]

When you make an adverb from an adjective, it's always identical to the neuter form. With å lukte/smake it's clear that you need an adverb because you are describing the way something tastes or smells. With føles it is different because it's in the middle voice (I think) so an adverb wouldn't really describe the way something feels but rather the way something is felt.

Ah yes that's a good point actually, and would kind of make sense how "føles" seems like "blir følt".

I would say:
1) Den er klar.
2) Den ligger klar.

You are right about the ones for ensom.

So you would also say:

Det er klart
Det ligger klart

In this case?

But,
Den ligger rart (as in, it's lying in a strange way) - is this correct?

I just had no clue that some adjectives would be treated differently, I wish I knew which ones obided by this rule and which ones didn't. "He stood quietly" to me seems like an adjective so I would always have assumed "Han står taust", so this would make me wonder, does one say "Det står taust" in such a case?

Thanks

 

[myšlenka]

So you would also say:

Det er klart
Det ligger klart

In this case?

Yes.

But,
Den ligger rart (as in, it's lying in a strange way) - is this correct?

Yes.

I just had no clue that some adjectives would be treated differently, I wish I knew which ones obided by this rule and which ones didn't. "He stood quietly" to me seems like an adjective so I would always have assumed "Han står taust"

The question is if you want to describe the person/object or the manner of the verb. You can use both han sto taus and han sto taust, the meaning difference in this case is very small.

does one say "Det står taust" in such a case?

Yes.

 

[sjiraff]

The question is if you want to describe the person/object or the manner of the verb. You can use both han sto taus and han sto taust, the meaning difference in this case is very small.

So in this case it is optional, but it still would sound wrong to say "Den sto taust" (such as when I first suggested saying støvelen lå taust)

I'm just trying to work out if it's the verb or the adjective that is changing it, if I should remember in my head "after stå and ligge the adjectives change according to the nound's gender" or if it's something specific to adjectives like taus and ensom

Han sto taust = okay
Støvelen lå ensomt = not okay

Thanks a bunch for all the help!

 

[myšlenka]

So in this case it is optional, but it still would sound wrong to say "Den sto taust" (such as when I first suggested saying støvelen lå taust)

I'm just trying to work out if it's the verb or the adjective that is changing it, if I should remember in my head "after stå and ligge the adjectives change according to the nound's gender" or if it's something specific to adjectives like taus and ensom

Han sto taust = okay
Støvelen lå ensomt = not okay

Thanks a bunch for all the help!

In #10 when I said that it seemed more natural to ascribe taus/ensom to persons/objects, it doesn't mean that you can't use them as adverbs. This means that:

Han/den sto taust = okay
Støvelen lå ensomt = okay

 

[sjiraff]

In #10 when I said that it seemed more natural to ascribe taus/ensom to persons/objects, it doesn't mean that you can't use them as adverbs. This means that:

Han/den sto taust = okay
Støvelen lå ensomt = okay

Oh I see, I'll try to bare that in mind as best I can but do you think if I ever said something like "Støvelen lå ensomt" it would raise eyebrows/seem like poor Norwegian? Just in case there are other situations where it sounds better not to add the -t that I don't know about or accidentally say it the way which I assumed to begin with from post 1.

Thanks a lot for all the help, I know I've kind of gone in circles a few times in this thread but I hate leaving things to chance

 

[NorwegianNYC]

It is an adjective because it goes with a static verb. Technically it is a predicate adjective, since it describes a noun, but comes after a linking verb. There are numerous examples in English, such as We grow older every day and She is afraid she will be late and The necklace would be perfect for her. (Adjectives underlined)

 

[myšlenka]

Oh I see, I'll try to bare that in mind as best I can but do you think if I ever said something like "Støvelen lå ensomt" it would raise eyebrows/seem like poor Norwegian?

Not at all!
Just for the fun of it, I googled "satt ensom" and "satt ensomt". The former is a lot more common (which was what I expected), but the latter is fine too.

 

[myšlenka]

It is an adjective because it goes with a static verb.

I can easily combine it with non-static ones:

Han gikk sulten til sengs.

 

[sjiraff]

It is an adjective because it goes with a static verb. Technically it is a predicate adjective, since it describes a noun, but comes after a linking verb. There are numerous examples in English, such as We grow older every day and She is afraid she will be late and The necklace would be perfect for her. (Adjectives underlined)

Hmm, I've never heard of predictive adjectives before. I would have thought older and afraid etc were just regular adjectives? But now I'm asking questions about my own native language which can't be a good sign!

Not at all!
Just for the fun of it, I googled "satt ensom" and "satt ensomt". The former is a lot more common (which was what I expected), but the latter is fine too.

Oh I see, but nevertheless I will try to remember the better way of saying it, now that it's stuck in my head a bit.

Thanks for baring with me and helping!

 

[sjiraff]

I can easily combine it with non-static ones:

Han gikk sulten til sengs.

That's interesting actually, I can see why that's sulten because you wouldn't really describe someone as "going hungrily" as if that's something which can be observed from the way someone acts, even though if you just treated all adjectives the same you might assume "sultent".

I think that has made me realise now why it's better to conjugate it this way (excuse the double post)

 

[NorwegianNYC]

I can easily combine it with non-static

Yes - you are correct. However, it is perhaps more typical in combination with stative, and not dynamic verbs. Actually, I take back what I said in my previous entry. Frodo sto taus ved stolen is in fact a dynamic verb (stå is an action) and a dynamic predicative adjective (taus is an action). The sentence can be re-written as En taus Frodo stod ved stolen, where the adjective is no longer predicative, but attributive.

 

[Sepia]

Hmm, I've never heard of predictive adjectives before. I would have thought older and afraid etc were just regular adjectives? But now I'm asking questions about my own native language which can't be a good sign!




Oh I see, but nevertheless I will try to remember the better way of saying it, now that it's stuck in my head a bit.

Thanks for baring with me and helping!

If you want it really simple - it is very similar to the constrction: "I had my car sprayed red." (= Result being that your car is red afterwards).

You would not "have your car sprayed redly" - I don't know what your car would look like after doing that, but that is certainly not what you want, I am sure.

And the person in the context is sitting there all alone ...

so it is an adjective, not an adverb.

 

[sjiraff]

If you want it really simple - it is very similar to the constrction: "I had my car sprayed red." (= Result being that your car is red afterwards).

You would not "have your car sprayed redly" - I don't know what your car would look like after doing that, but that is certainly not what you want, I am sure.

And the person in the context is sitting there all alone ...

so it is an adjective, not an adverb.

Ahh I see now, that makes sense now I think on it, especially with ensom. Maybe adjectives like quiet (taust) are a bit more ambiguous sometimes, at least I found it kind of a grey area to distinguish between something sitting quietly or sitting quiet. But now you mention it, in English you can say "He sat quiet by the door" or "he sat quietly", the latter of which describes more how he sits, not the person himself.