"The boy does not hear me."

Translation:Gutten hører meg ikke.

May 24, 2015

This discussion is locked.


Why doesn't ikke come right after hører in this case?


Good question.

Both are equally fine, but they may mean different things depending on emphasis in the English sentence:

  • "Gutten hører meg ikke": The boy does not hear me
  • "Gutten hører ikke meg": The boy does not hear me / They boy does not hear me (but he may hear others / other things)

You cannot say "Gutten hører meg ikke" (with emphasis on meg).

Not all the correct translations were added, but it is fixed now.


Well couldn't you say "Gutten ikke hører meg"?


Ikke comes after the verb


while translation-wise that makes sense for english, it doesn't work. you have to put ikke after the verb.

jeg spiser ikke kjøtt. i do not eat meat.

spiser involves the do before the eat, so the direct translation would be "i do eat not meat." which is not right.


So you mean if I say "Gutten hører meg ikke", I'm not emphasizing meg?


“Gutten hører ikke meg” is also a valid sentence, with mostly the same meaning. I say mostly, because this version has a tone which may indicate that the boy is (selectively) deaf towards me.


Maybe he's being eaten by a bear?


Nei, ulven spiser ham. Bjørnen klemte ham bare


'Gutten hører ei meg.' I don't understand why it states that is a correct answer D: Where does 'ei' come from?


I read in some comments elsewhere that "ei" is the counterpart of "ikke" in some dialects.

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