"Jeg tror ikke at du har truffet kjæresten min."

Translation:I do not think that you have met my boyfriend.

October 1, 2015

This discussion is locked.


why is 'truffet' pronounced 'troffet'?


u's tend to be pronounced as o's before double consonants in verbs. Same with o->å.


U's are tricky...

I think my boyfriend pronounces it troffet too (his dialect is much closer to bokmål than mine). My kid has a book where a pig and frog takes a bubble bath, and the pig finds the bubbles a bit scary. Grynt synes det er litt skummelt med skum. Skummelt = skummelt (u as in too) skum = skom. I keep mixing them unless I concentrate when readin it, and I am Norwegian!


well, I guess one just has to learn it on a case by case basis then...thanks anyway!


I guess møtte could be used here also?


This is not directly about this sentence but it is something that puzzles me. If you put a text in a good modern translation engine, the French translation is really very good, even with tricky texts such as nautical jargon. But try using the same translator on Norwegian and it is dreadful. Here is an example from a Norwegian text using perhaps the best and most used translation engine:.. ... "To get the smell of lynx on you is to get stain of shame. The stupid race cat, they said to mock. Hardly particularly walkable today. And the plant stink beak know for bad smell is called in both Sundal Flower.."... This is rubbish, it is gibberish. Can anyone explain why? I was trying to make my own phrases for learning Norwegian. ANY THOUGHTS OR IDEAS? This nonsense text was actually about stoats. Thanks for any thoughts.


Would we say "kjæresten mi" to talk about a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend ?


Fyi, No, grammatically it's exclusively a "hankjønn" word


This is more of an English language question.

Is there a direct translation of kjærest, i.e. one that can be both boyfriend and girlfriend? Especially with large variety of gender identities that is accepted now, there should be a better word for it. I think partner is too general and not personal enough for a girlfriend/boyfriend.


I believe it's 'significant other'. I always use it.


That is a great term, and it covers everything relevant to this.


shouldnt "have been meeting " be accepted?


I don't think so. It'd sound like 'you have been seeing my boyfriend/girlfriend', which sounds bad and is not the case. The sentence is used when you want to introduce your significant other to somebody they haven't met before.


"i believe that you have not met my girlfriend" and was marked wrong, not because I used girlfriend instead of boyfriend (I Kjaeresten was interchangeable depending on context) but because of my word order. Was what i wrote totally unacceptable, or is this also a valid way of structuring the sentence? Takk for hjelpen!


Kjæreste means both a girlfriend and a boyfriend. Your sentence makes sense, though it's 'jeg tror ikke' and not 'du har ikke truffet', so I guess it could be the reason it's not accepted.

  • 1803

why tror and no tenkte ?


Believe =/= think :)


Your sentence structure is perfectly acceptable in English. However, it is slightly different from the Norwegian version of the sentence which is 'I do not believe/think that you have met...' rather than ' I believe/think that you have not met...'

I think these sentences are pretty much interchangeable in meaning but you'd be much more likely to say 'I don't believe you have met...' and it is often used as a way of introducing someone to someone else.

Learn Norwegian (Bokmål) in just 5 minutes a day. For free.