1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Norwegian (Bokmål)
  4. >
  5. "Jeg elsker svigerfar."

"Jeg elsker svigerfar."

Translation:I love my father-in-law.

May 22, 2015



Anyone else weirded out by this sentence?


Yeah, it seems like they wanted some funny sentences in this course. Which is good :)


Nope, I love my father in law, and I don't mean anything romantic about that.


"Elsker" is rather used for romanfic love


I agree. it must be a special occation for me to say I love someone, I would prefer to say: ' Jeg er glad i min svigerfar.' Å være glad i = to be fond of.

I love my sister, but I would say to you when I talk about her : 'Jeg er veldig glad i søsteren min.'


There was no my in the sentence...


I really like my father in law but bot romantically


So, like I saw in another thread, you typically wouldn't say this if you are a native Norwegian? Jeg er glad i svigerfar/svigermor would be more common. Otherwise the husband might wonder what is going on with his wife and dad. Right?


Does svigerfar not need a possessive?


It is implied that you're talking about your own 'svigerfar' when no other possessives are present. The sentence can also be written with a possessive, and it would sound no less natural:

Jeg elsker min svigerfar.
Jeg elsker svigerfaren min.


Basically what I came in here to ask. My brain needs either an article or word of possession for this to make sense. That may be from the 30+ years of English.


I put "I love father-in-law" and it was rejected, saying that "...my father-in-law" was correct. The pop-up says either are possible. Should mine be OK and if not, what should clue me off that I need "my".


It's one of the alternatives, so it should have been accepted, even if not very natural. Perhaps there was a glitch, or another typo at play.

The 'my' is sometimes implied in Norwegian when it's rather obvious that the person or thing which you are referring to is in fact yours. It is most common in answers to questions about that person or thing, where the context of that person or thing being yours is already established:

Misliker du svigerfaren din?
Do you dislike your father-in-law?

Nei, tvert imot, jeg elsker svigerfar! Han tar alltid med kake og øl.
No, quite the opposite, I love my father-in-law! He always brings beer and cake.

However the possessives never -have- to be omitted, so as learners I'd advice you to add them as a general rule. You're of course safe to omit them in the sentences where the course does so.


I always felt (in English) that using it without the possessive feels like talking about the person, whereas using the possessive feels like talking about that person in that role.

Dad is cool = My dad is, in general, a cool person. My dad is cool = My dad is cool as a father.

Would the same be true for Far er kul / Min far er kul?


They showed us in the beginning that pronouns and adjectives tend to swap:

For example, "Sko mine"- my shoes (might be wrong on spelling that)

However, the possessive is similar to English in that the meaning is the same.


Well our teacher told us it doesn't really matter if you place the possesive in front or after the subject, but that if it is in the front, it sounds very childish to her (f.x. a child is screaming: "min bil, min bil"! - my car, my car! and adult will rather say "bil min").


This depends as much on tone of voice as on word placement, so I'd take that advice with a grain of salt. It does however tend to put focus on the ownership aspect.

When describing family members that rule goes out the window, as we don't own family. Saying 'min svigerfar' is actually much more common than 'svigerfaren min', though either is fine.


You have to say 'bilen min'. It is either min bil or bilen min.


Leaving out the possessive pronoun in English sounds very unnatural. It's occasionally done with "mother" and "father", but I think most speakers would use the possessive even there. I can't really imagine saying "I love father-in-law".


Well it pretty much depends on the context I would say. For example it makes sends and doesn't sound unnatural at all if I say "I love father-in-law" in Czech language without a possesive. I admit it sounds a bit strange in english, but technically I would say it is correct.


Even in Czech I would say "miluji svého tchána" rather than "miluji tchána", but Czech is in any case an unreliable guide to English in these matters. English countable nouns generally require determiners, at least in the singular. These are often articles, but can belong to other categories, including possessives. That's why English translations of Czech sentences often include possessives where Czech has none. English requires a determiner and prefers possessives to articles where both are possible. Czech has no articles and no aversion to countable nouns without determiners. So I would say that "miluji tchána" is grammatically correct Czech, though a bit weird, while "I love father-in-law" is not just weird in English but grammatically wrong.


Oh yes, you are right, I forgot about an article.


I think it should be accepted. I encounter theese problems quite often, since it is still beta I guess. Problems like I translate "det" as "that" and the system accepts only "it" as a right answer and so on. Just report it next time.


The clue should come from how english language is spoken.


Came looking for that :)


Pronunciation of the sentence does not contatin '-SH-' sound after word 'elskeR' Isn't it incorrect?


Quite similar to Spanish ...Amo a mi suegro

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