"For they do not know what they do."
Translation:For de vet ikke hva de gjør.
Are you people seriously so offended by a half of a bible verse that doesn't even directly mention god or anything -remotely- religious? No one's preaching and you can rest assured that no one's going to convert anyone with a totally passive verse from the bible. And something tells me (based on a comment that one of you left on the Norwegian-English quote) that were this a verse from the Quran or -any- other religious text, you wouldn't be making such a big deal about it, quite the contrary, you'd be praising Duolingo for its progressivism =P Can you not see the hypocrisy in such statements? I'm irreligious myself and people like you don't seem to get the point of being so. You're not helping anything, just (ironically) trying to ram your views down everyone else's throats, making the rest of us look bad in the process.
I third this. In other lessons/comments, we've been told that hva is an interrogative - that is, a question word - and generally should not be used to head dependent clauses in sentences like this, that det is generally better. So I'm wondering what makes this sentence different.
I started the sentence with "for" and it wanted "fordi", are they not interchangeable? While I am typing this the Duolingo page has "for de vet ikke hva de gjor", so I'm none the wiser. I did not get the reference to anything biblical, I just thought it was an archaeic sentence starting with an ungrammatical conjunction.
They're both acceptable here, but require different word orders. This is because "for" is a conjunction used to tie together two main clauses, while "fordi" is considered a subjunction, which triggers another word order. It's tricky!
"For de vet ikke hva de gjør"
"Fordi de ikke vet hva de gjør"
Adrian has posted an explanation regarding the word order above, and here is another one in Norwegian - with sentence examples: https://norskfordeg.no/ressurser/norsk-for-deg-grammatikk/helsetninger-og-leddsetninger/
Well, if the "V2 rule" is "The verb is always in the second position in a Norwegian sentence", then it's wrong. Forget the V2 rule!
- Normal word order in the main clause is subject-verb-adverb-object.
- If you add a conjunction (like "Og", "Men", or in this case "For") to the start, it doesn't change the basic word order. (It doesn't change word order in English either: "I came home", "And I came home".) And that's why the V2 rule doesn't apply.
- There are some exceptions to normal word order in main clause. For instance, you might invert the word order if you're asking a question ("Kommer du hjem?"). And, importantly, you invert the word order if you put an adverb at the start of the clause ("Plutselig kom jeg hjem").
- You can also swap the adverb and object around if you want to emphasise the adverb ("Jeg kom hjem plutselig!").
Subordinate clause (like "hva de gjor" here):
- Normal order is subjunction-subject-ADVERB-verb-object.
- Verb is rarely in second position in a subordinate clause (usually there will be a subjunction, like "hva", and then a noun in front of the verb). That's why the V2 rule doesn't apply here either.
Putting subordinate clause before main clause:
- So, you can say, "I'm sad when he goes", or "When he goes, I'm sad". In the first case, it's all expected word order, "Jeg er trist nar han gar". In the second case, putting the subordinate clause before the main clause has the same effect on word order as putting an adverb at the start of a main clause: you invert verb and subject. "Nar han gar, er jeg trist."
Thanks! However V2 applies always, there're just words, like adverbs, taking place zero (despite still not getting the thing I read lots of explainations and that notion keeps appearing). It makes more sense than saying the role doesn't apply bc there have to be some rules.. But how is er du kommer hjem? even a thing?? I'm pretty sure it should be kommer du hjem?.
Truly, the only rule in most languages that is 100% accurate 100% of the time is that there are exceptions to all rules, including the rule that there are exceptions to all rules. I find it easier to learn the rules first, so that the exceptions stand out, then learn the exceptions as mini-rules of their own.
It's hardly preaching. Duolingo sometimes uses quotes from pop songs, or TV series, or films (movies), so I don't see what the objection is to this sentence that happens to occur in the bible.