1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Danish
  4. >
  5. "Mændene ved ikke, om deres k…

"Mændene ved ikke, om deres koner spiser."

Translation:The men do not know if their wives are eating.

August 30, 2014



Lol, is "ved ikke" supposed to be pronounced like that?


it is probably one of the funniest things I have ever heard.


I replayed it over and over just for the laugh!


let's not forget these pronunciations are made by a computer. they might not always sound exactly like a native speaker


It sounds like "vil" to me instead of "ved".


Yes, that's yet another example of the "Danish soft d sounds like English dark l" phenomenon. It's something that does take a while to get your head around, but one does become used to it in the end!


Not exactly, but it seems pretty close to how the danes seem to say it. The d isn't pronounced entirely and modifies the tone instead and it sounds like ve - (weird emphasis on d) - ik


"Mændene" cannot mean also "the husbands"? Is it wrong?


In this sentence 'the husbands' are a better tranlation because it also says 'their wives', so we know they are married.


She emphasizes the ved ikke lol! Is that supposed to be pronounces like villllick?


that comma bothers me. If you did that in english, it would change the meaning from roughly "the men don't know whether the wives are eating" to "if the wives are eating, therefore the men do not know.".


I don't think I agree with you, goedjn, that a notional "the men don't know, whether the wives are eating" would have the meaning you suggest -- chiefly because a sentence so punctuated would not even be English!

Regarding the comma in the Danish sentence, that needn't be bothersome so long as you take into account the "rule" that in Danish commas are inserted between grammatical clauses. Mændene ved ikke is clause 1; deres koner spiser is clause 2 (and om (=whether) conjoins the two).

Now, the only qualification to what I've just written is that if the subordinate (a.k.a. dependent) clause (the one headed by at, da, fordi, mens, når, om, siden, som, så etc. or a "hv-word" like hvad or hvor) comes second then the comma is OPTIONAL. This "revolutionary" :) deviation from previous practice was introduced by Dansk Sprognævn – the Danish Language Council – in, I believe, 2004. It allows you to write EITHER Mændene ved ikke, om deres koner spiser OR Mændene ved ikke om deres koner spiser.

P.S. Should the dependent clause, however, come first -- Om deres koner spiser, ved mændene ikke -- then a comma MUST be inserted. This is a bit of a "belt-and-braces" approach, to tell the truth, since the inversion of mændene ved to ved mændene in the main clause is already an indication in itself that the whole of Om deres koner spiser is a subordinate/dependent clause.

Helpful? Or "clear as mud"? In either case, any reports of faulty analysis will be gratefully received.


Very helpful, thank you!


That must be some secret eating club their wives have


Apparently I've been pronouncing it all wrong this whole time :O


How would someone ask this question if they wanted to say "The husbands do not know"?


ved mændene ikke? Should be = do the husbands not know?


ikke is pronounced ik when the whole sentence is read out, but as ikke when the single word is selected -- nevertheless the program wouldn't accept ik when I said it. :(


I got confused about the 'om', I thought it meant about/on, which makes WAY more sense to me in the context of the sentence.


It's hard for a French woman to remain serious on hearing "Kone" and "Koner" because the meaning is very different for us even if it is not written in the same way.


The man do not know if their wives eat is wrong ! ?


It says "do not know" is incorrect and won't accept it, insisting that i put "don't know" instead. That's both weird and completely wrong. There's absolutely no reason to penalise either variant.


Spill the truth Duo, on those neglecting mofos


But what about the computer saying I was wrong, even though I had it completely right, except I put "don't" instead of "do not"?


Oh! I see! I misspelled "their" by writing "there". Maybe that's why it said I was wrong. Maybe it would have allowed the "don't" for do not".

Learn Danish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.