I thought the rule was that it's only single-syllable neuter nouns that do not get a plural suffix? Why does jordbær not get a suffix in the same way as, say, eple/epler?
My guess would be that it is just a derivative of the word bær. Since you don't change bær in the plural form, you wouldn't change -bær words either. That is just my guess, though. I could completely be wrong. :)
Ah that makes sense, thanks! Would be useful to have a note on this in the Tips & Notes section...
I don't think it's just single syllable neuter nouns, I remember it as neuter nouns that end in a consonant.
Because the singular would need the indefinite article: et jordbær = a strawberry. The fact that the article is missing here, points to the use of plural.
I wrote "Child eats apples and strawberries", but I was marked that it is a mistake. I wonder what is the translation of "Child eats apples and strawberries" to Norwegian.
Well, child isn't a noun that can stand alone without an article. And since there is no "et" in front of barn, we can rule out the indefinite singular "a child." The word is also not the definite singular "barnet" which would mean "the child." So we are left with the definite plural "the children" or the indefinite plural "children." Barn (as well as a couple of other monosyllabic neuter gendered nouns to my knowledge) can be either "barna" or "barnene" in the definite plural. Barn is nether of these. So we are left with the indefinite plural of "barn" being simply "barn" meaning "children." Saying "child eats apples and strawberries" makes no sense in English. However, "Children eat apples and strawberries" does. So that is the best translation. :) Sorry for the long-winded response. I just want people to understand the reasoning behind things. Did this make sense?
One wouldn't say "Child eats apples and strawberries" in English. An article (a/the) or possessive pronoun or similar modifier is required because the word "child" is a singular countable noun.
If "Child" were a name, this would make sense, and the translation, I think, would be "Child spiser epler og jordbær."
Why in some neuter nouns we have to put er ( as in epler) to form the plural , and in others not?
Single syllable neuter nouns usually stay the same in the indefinite plural, and the same goes for compound nouns that end in a single syllable neuter noun.
For multiple syllable neuter nouns it's a bit more complicated, but most of them get an added '-er' or '-re' in the indefinite plural. They often have several declension patterns to choose from.
Really? How would one translate "I want to eat"..? 1. Jeg vil spise. OR 2. Jeg vil á spise.
In english verbs "to" is the infinitive marker.
In norwegian verbs "å" is the infinitive marker.
to eat = å spise
to speak = å snakke
In norwegian you don't use the infinitive marker with "modal verbs".
I want to eat fish. = Jeg vil spise fisk.
We can speak Norwegian. = Vi kan snakke norsk.
You have to (must) learn Norwegian. = Du må lære norsk.