So it is correct to use the noun also as an adjective? Is this form more used than 'maten är för saltigt'? Does the same rule apply to other spices, like sugar?
It is irregular. "Salt" means "salt" as well as "salty". "Saltigt" sounds like something a child would say.
And no, it only applies to salt. For example we would say "pepprigt" for something that is "peppery" (is that a word).
I don't know if peppery is a word but I can tell you that most people will use it anyway. It might be more correct/formal to say "something that tastes like pepper" or something like that, but most of the time people will just take the shortcut and say "peppery". In informal situations, you can get away with putting -y on pretty much anything.
Peppery is used a lot as a word to describe someone's personality. And Texican cuisine.
Tack så mycket! I would have used 'saltig', but now I'm going to (try to) erase it from my Swedish mind. (It's salzig in German, though)
Exactly but you normally wouldn't use the latter - not wrong just not common. "Versalzen" is the past participle - basically "oversalted".
'Peppery' is a word, it means: with the taste of pepper or having a fiery temperament. Too much pepper would be: too hot, too spicy.
Peppery is a word, although perhaps not in the dictionary. I use it (and hear it used), but not as often as salty, because people tend to over salt food more often than over pepper it.
If the food is too sweet, you say "maten är för söt" and if it is too spicy you say "maten är för stark" or "maten är för kryddstark" (krydda = spice).
Intressanta skillnader mellan språk! Om maten är för stark betyder det att det finns för mycket kryddor eller att det finns för mycket 'chili'? (På finska skulle vi säga att maten är för eldig)
Eldig beskriver bra hur det kan kännas. Svår fråga, men är det inte just chili som gör att det blir starkt/eldigt? I och för sig kan jag tänkta mig att någon som inte tycker om vitlök kan säga att "maten är för stark" om den innehåller mycket vitlök. Känner mig osäker här.
What does för translate as? For? Because? Too? Confuses me how it is used.
so in this case, the t being on the end (rather than another one being added) turned it into an adverb
There is no way to guess the adverbial form of a word based on the original adjective, is there?
Late answer, but you can guess that it is created by adding a -t, e.g.: snabb -> snabbt ('fast') It won't cover all cases, but it will cover a lot of them.
It can be used about people (to mean cool or tough) – it's basically an outdated slang word, but some people still use it, often ironically. The origin is old sailors' slang.
It makes me think of this song ('Den saltaste bönan i stan') https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn8SJY5c-Hw
Should the "s" in "salt" (in this sentence) be pronounced as [ʂ]? I assume there is just a bug with the voice, but I don't want to get in the habit of mispronouncing this if it is an exception.
Yes, r and s should be assimilated even over word borders, that happens in most versions of Standard Swedish. There are dialects where it doesn't happen, so it's no big deal if you miss it, but most people pronounce it that way (even if some of those who do don't realize it themselves).
I really don't get this sometimes. Are their rules for för, i, på, om, and all the other prepositions? I don't want to spend forever thinking about it when I'm in a conversation and was wondering if there were specific rules that went along with each one which could help me decide when I'm talking to somebody.
för is not a preposition here, it means 'too' (as in 'too much') and it's an adverb.
för is a preposition in a phrase like en bok för barn 'a book for children'
It's impossible to give simple rules for the prepositions in any language. The Duo idea is to practice typical sentences so that it becomes natural, much like children learn their native language.
You're always welcome to ask about specific sentences in the forums here, and there are already many helpful explanations in some of them.
Wiktionary states that "too" (when it means too much) can be "alltför" or "för". Is there a difference between them or not?
Won't swear by this, but I think alltför is stronger. Not quite as strong as English "way too" (that would be alldeles för), but more in that direction.
The word för isn't only used for for. Otherwise it only could be saltet är för maten/the salt is for the food. The meat is for the salt should be ridiculous or salt is some kind of monster that is feed by salt. What if my name is Salt, Maten är för Salt?
In British English it's just as right to say "The food is too salt" as it is to say "the food is too salty".
Really? My sixty-something British husband says he's never heard that. Is it a regional usage perhaps? Interesting! I'm not questioning you; I'm just curious. No, we're just curious! ;-)
I don't think it's regional, have always thought of it as perfectly standard!
I'm from the UK, and have never heard anyone say "the food is too salt". I usually hear either "the food is too salty" or "the food has too much salt in it".
What part of the UK are you from?
I've never heard it either. I'm guessing it is only ever used in spoken i.e. informal English in certain dialects.
I never heard my English-born grandmother use this either. She was born in Plymouth in 1909 and her father was born in Oxford. She had quite a posh accent, like received pronunciation, even though they were not rich. And as an Australian I have never heard it either.