1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Norwegian (Bokmål)
  4. >
  5. "For they do not know what th…

"For they do not know what they do."

Translation:For de vet ikke hva de gjør.

October 29, 2015



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.


Lol I think some people are just overly sensitive on both sides. As far as I'm concerned I hadn't even noticed the quote but I don't really care where it comes from as long as the exercise is useful and doesn't insult anybody.


Hør, hør! Hehe


When I read this quote, I think of engaging love to make allowances for other people, rather than rashly judging them. This is a good concept to set limits to revenge and cruelty.


What came first in my mind when I read the sentence was the title of an old film with James Dean. In the German version the name of the film is identical with that sentence. Perhaps duo meant that.


I thought the same and looked it up. The original title is "Rebel Without a Cause" and is translated to Norwegian as "Rotløs ungdom". So Duo obviously didn't meant that. But until this moment, I never even realised that it's a quote from the bible :D


Actually the Qur'an has a lot of verses similar to this


Men Jesus sa: 《Far, tigli dem, for de vet ikke hva de gjør.》 De delte klærne Hans mellom seg og kastet lodd om dem.


"tilgi", ikke "tigli", ikke sant?


Interestingly an English priest would still be archaic while speaking this, using the Norwegian word order "For they know not what they do".


Could "For de vet ikke DET de gjør" be correct? (It's marked as wrong.)


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 wondered this too


I used "kjenner" instead of "vet", and it said it was wrong. Can't really understand why, help would be greatly appreciated. Full sentence was "For de kjenner ikke hva de gjør".


kjenne is for familiarity, especially of people, when you "know someone". vet is for facts. What they do is a "fact" so you have to use vet.


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/


Why doesnt V2 apply here? In both parts actually. Can someone say something more about the whole V2 concept?
I end up almost always guessing or just remembering whole sentences, I can't come up with everything on my own..


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!

Main clause:

  • 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?.


You're right! And you're also right about "er du kommer hjem"! I'll make an edit so that it doesn't confuse anyone.


This rule is why I will never Master Swedish or Norwegian. There appears to be no consistency. Of course, I'm an English speaker so I have little room to judge. LOL


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.


shouldn't the V2 rule apply here? so that the second part of the sentence should have the verb in 2nd position? "hva gjør de"?


As far as i know V2 rule only works when dependent clause comes first in the sentence. In the one above there are two main clauses.


Ok, I don't know what the V2 verb is, but if it's "The verb is always in the second position in a Norwegian sentence", then it's wrong.

In the case of subordinate clauses (like "what they do" here), normal word order is subjunction-subject-adverb-verb-object.


I just came across two sentences that contradict each other with this rule. I don't know where to post them for an explanation though.


The word order on subordinate clauses is different. The V2 rule only applies to main clauses.


I am not religious and I think this is a beautiful quote with a nice meaning.


I am a bit confused about when to use gjør, when to use gjøre and when to use gå - am I right in thinking they all mean 'do/go'?


Å gjøre == to do, or to make

Jeg gjør == I do, or I make

Å gå == to walk, or to go

Jeg går == I walk, or I go


What is the difference between hva and for? I put for and it marked it wrong. Full sentence was "For de vet ikke for de gjør."


"Hva" = "what" From what I understand, "for" generally means "for". (it might have some other uses depending on context, though; these words are confusing) So, you typed "for they know not for they do"


I keep thinking I add an 'e' for plural verbs so I guessed verb form 'vite' her. De vite. Is this an exception ver?


Yes, "å vite" is a highly irregular verb, in the present tense as well as others.

å vite - vet - visste - har visst

Men nå vet du det. :)


"For they know not what they do"


I feel so uncomfortable with this sentence!


It's very biblical.


That's the problem. I don't get why the norwegian team is using these lessons as a chance to preach .


Who is preaching? It is a common sentence and just happens to come from a very common source. This is in all the languages anyway. You must have noticed that the same sentences recur in all the pods.


Neither a common sentence nor a common source.

This is absolutely not in all the languages. This is the only language I have come across bible quotes.


2.2 billion people might disagree with you :)


Or maybe you're just a paranoid?

[deactivated user]

    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.


    It's a terrible choice.

    • 1324

    beautiful sentence its about forgiveness. Buddhists believe this too, that people aren't to blame for their wrong doings because they are confused and trapped in illusion.

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