I've noticed that 'sentences' without a main verb are more common in formal writing in Norwegian than in English. Maybe they're not considered incorrect. Here's an example from a government document: 'Fellesnevneren for disse tilsynssakene er at de gjelder alvorlig syke pasienter og at feilene som er begått har hatt alvorlige konsekvenser for pasientene. Videre at sakene ofte involverer annet helsepersonell og andre helsetjenestetilbud.' Now my British brain (despite umpteen years in Norway) would want to write 'Dessuten involverer sakene ofte...' instead of 'Videre at...' because then it would be what in British eyes is a 'proper sentence'. There are many others I've seen, apart from 'Videre at...', for example starting a new 'sentence' with 'Noe som...' instead of just adding a comma to the previous sentence '...pasienter, noe som...' Perhaps Norwegians don't consider such things to be mistakes, or at least are more tolerant of them than a British teacher or proof-reader would be (?)
Norwegian sentences without a main verb?
- Thread starter serbianfan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- norwegian
It is quite obvious that English and Norwegian syntax and style are different, and you can't use English standards to Norwegian sentences. I can't see any lacking verbs in the sentences, there are actually multiple verbs, as the sentences are compound ones. What do you mean by "main verb"?
Norwegian is not my language, but looking at this sentence through my Swedish glasses I see nothing wrong with it. I believe this is now an idiom in both Norwegian and Swedish, albeit a relatively recent one. It has been acceptable usage since at least the 1960s, probably longer.
Two examples from first a Norwegian and then a Swedish newspaper (my boldfacing):
I’m not sure about Norwegian, but in Swedish this is also acceptable although I would probably avoid it myself except in a fairly informal text.
From another newspaper article:
I agree with Serbianfan: there is something not quite right with the sentence "Videre at sakene ofte involverer annet helsepersonell og andre helsetjenestetilbud." I would have written "Videre involverer sakene ofte ...". In Segorian's Norwegian example, I would prefer "... til en rimelig penge, og at det ...".
I am no grammar expert, so I can't really explain this. But "at sakene ofte involverer annet helsepersonell og andre helsetjenestetilbud." seems to be a subordinate clause. This gives you a subordinate clause without any main clause, just the word "Videre".
Having said that, it is true that "Videre at" is widely used, and I can't say that it is unacceptable. I just wouldn't use it myself. Segorian's Swedish example shows that it can be functional: it is more difficult to replace "Videre at" in that sentence.
Starting a sentence with "Noe som" is more problematic than "Videre at", in my opinion.
I am no grammar expert, so I can't really explain this. But "at sakene ofte involverer annet helsepersonell og andre helsetjenestetilbud." seems to be a subordinate clause. This gives you a subordinate clause without any main clause, just the word "Videre".
Having said that, it is true that "Videre at" is widely used, and I can't say that it is unacceptable. I just wouldn't use it myself. Segorian's Swedish example shows that it can be functional: it is more difficult to replace "Videre at" in that sentence.
Starting a sentence with "Noe som" is more problematic than "Videre at", in my opinion.
Well, this seems to be a grey area with a variety of opinions. If I'd had more time, maybe I could have found out what Norsk Språkråd or Riksmålsforbundet say about this (if anything). All I found out in a quick Google search is that there's a clear difference between 'helsetninger' (previously called 'hovedsetninger') and 'leddsetninger' (previously 'bisetninger, and in English not sentences at all, but clauses). The former can stand alone (John spoke to the girl) and the latter can't (who lives across the street). I think most of us learned this at school. But what does 'alone' mean here? Obviously you can't start a conversation with 'Videre at dette blir vanskelig for regjeringen'. But if it comes after another sentence which it's connected to (semantically, if not in punctuation), it's not really 'alone' any more.
Yes, I'm sure you're right, although I would guess that in the 1960s teachers would still be saying it was wrong. What they say today I have no idea. It's a pretty straightforward rule for your class to remember if you say "Nei, dette er en leddsetning, den kan ikke brukes slik", compared to if you say "Tja, hmm... det går an med 'videre at' men ikke med 'noe som', eller kanskje det gjør det likevel..."
Well, there are no strict rules of writing in Norway anymore. You can begin a sentence with words that previously were forbidden, for example with "men", which once were reserved for subordinated clauses. Generally, the written language has become more oral, and people often write without much care about consistency or composition.
I have also finally understood your usage of "main verb". It was actually about a subordinate clause "torn away" from the main clause.
I actually did a quick search, on both sides of the Keel, but without success.
Yes, that’s how I see it. I’m more comfortable with Vidare att… than Något som… because the former can be construed as an abbreviation of sorts that (only) works because it refers to the previous sentence:
Beginning a sentence with Något som, on the other hand, is more a case of misrepresenting a bisats as a huvudsats. Most people, in fact, sense this and would write the two clauses as follows:
That wouldn’t surprise me. I started school in Sweden in the 1960s, but I don’t remember what we were taught about these things.
I doubt that you will find much from Språkrådet or Riksmålsforbundet regarding this (as confirmed by Segorian's attempt in #8). Språkrådet is mostly concerned with spelling while Riksmålsforbundet seems to be stuck in morphology. They don't have much to say about syntax, probably because it is a messy field which forces them to make very general statements, as you already have found:
I suppose that we can say that main clauses express a complete proposition regardless of factors that are external to the clause itself, such as the canonical use of definite forms, the actual reference of pronouns in addition to relations to other propositons in the context, typically signalled by adverbs such as imidlertid, derfor etc. As for subordinate clauses, the general claim is that they are not able to stand 'alone' but that is a simplification because such cases can be perfectly fine in Norwegian:
a) At jeg ikke tenkte på det!
b) Som du maser!
c) Kanskje hun kommer.
The first two are introduced by subjunctions while the last one has subordinate clause syntax. One could of course discuss whether these are really subordinate clauses, but that would obviously raise the question of what a subordinate clause really is and how you define one (maybe it's the function and not the form).
No strict rules anymore? Could you clarify this? You seem to imply that such rules existed in the past, but that they have been suspended. Are you referring to the fact that there are different spelling options available? Or is it rather about the lack of idiosyncratic rules such as "no split infinitives" or "don't start sentences with 'men' " (which is the kind of rule you seem to allude to)? By the way, 'men' is for coordination and not subordination.
1. I ddin't mean the generous spelling rules.
2. I haven't studied this matter, and I even don't know where I could find any stuff on this subject. I only compare Norwegian texts from the early 1980 with today's writing and I sit with the impression that few writers today care about well organized syntax. The majority just follow the loose oral syntax.
3. Do you suggest that there was no rule concering beginning a sentence with "men"?
By the way, 'men' is for coordination and not subordination.
Does it matter much in this context?
Wouldn't subordinate clause syntax be "hun kanskje kommer"? For example "Jeg tror at hun kanskje kommer"
"Kanskje hun kommer" doesn't immediately strike me as wrong, as I still often think in terms of English syntax, but I didn't realise Norwegians might say/write it.
Last edited:
2. Your impression may be accurate, but I am not sure it has to do with writers not caring. In the early 80s, newspapers still had proof readers and journalists had to translate foreign articles themselves. In general, there was more time to work on texts. Nowadays, I assume a lot of newspaper articles are just run through Google Translate and there are no proof readers. Publish or perish! Naturally, this will have consequences for the quality. However, in order to obtain a good text flow, strict rules are probably not the way to go. I would not even know how to formulate such rules. At best, they would be super general guidelines. And such guidelines have been around for decades and have been reinforced by the klarspråk project that they started some years ago. So... I am not sure what you are missing in terms of (strict) rules.
3. Such a rule has indeed been formulated for Norwegian and also for other languages, but I don't understand what the basis for the rule was. As a general guideline to avoid repetitions? Sure. But a general ban on such words in sentence initial position finds little justification.
I suppose that depends on what the context is.
I see now that what I meant wasn't very clear. I meant to say that the stuff following kanskje looks like a subordinate clause. Generally in main clauses, you would have the verb in the second position, but kanskje at the beginning of the clause is happy with either order.
Kanskje hun kommer. (I think I prefer this one)
Kanskje kommer hun.
You mentioned that the rule for use of "men" has been formulated, and functions in many languages. For me the rule is perfectly logical and well founded. The conjuction words like "men, og, eller, så" are meant to be used in compound sentences. Breaking up a (written) compound sentence and beginning a new sentence with a conjunction is considered a syntactic error in most European languages. Grammatical and syntactic rules are conventions, and conventions can be changed, but some of the conventions are quite useful for better understanding.
(Grammatical and syntactic rules are conventions, and conventions can be changed. But some of the conventions are quite useful for better understanding.)
By the way, Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson was criticized for the opening of the Norwegian national Anthem with "Ja".
Using contemporary style one could also begin the text with "Nei, vi elsker".
I did mention that it has been formulated, but I don't recognise the bolded part as a statement I have made. That being said, the statement may well be true for all I know, but from what I found on Norwegian and English, such a rule is generally dismissed. Garner's Modern English Usage does not posit such a rule and some of the quotes there arguing against the rule date back to the 19th century. As for Norwegian, even some of the most conservative authorities I know about (Riksmålsforbundet, Finn-Erik Vinje) accept sentences starting with conjunctions. And for the fun of it, I also checked Accademica della Crusca for Italian and L'académie française for French: none of them seem to be operating with any such rule either.
They are indeed used to conjoin phrases and clauses, but it seems that you want them exclusively for that, throwing away semantically and pragmatically motivated usage in sentence initial position. I am not sure how logical and well founded that is. However, in the remaining part of your post, I have the impression that you are discussing a different issue. Breaking up conjoined clauses and allowing conjunction initial sentences are not necessarily the same thing.
The grammar and spellchecker in Word puts a line under 'But' at the beginning of sentences and suggests you replace it with 'However,'. This is, as Myšlenka points out, one of many different views. But (or However, if you like) it's a pity that so many Norwegians accept the grammar and spellchecker as the "Bible truth" and will change perfectly correct English into something else (sometimes something quite incorrect) based on the brainless grammar and spellchecker.