- Forum >
- Topic: Norwegian (Bokmål) >
- "Hun spiser overfor sin mann."
43 Comments
If anyone wonders why overfor sin sounds like "overfoshin", it's because the second "r" in overfor combines with the "s" in sin to make the "sh" sound. Even though the "r" and the "s" are in two different words, they still combine to make the "sh" sound due to their connection.
Properly pronouncing each word by itself would sound very staccato. When speaking it mostly does not matter if words hang together or not. Vær så god” og “Værsågod” would be pronounced the same if one does not intentionally split the wording. I do not think there is a noticeable difference in pronunciation of “forskjell” (difference) and “for skjell” neither. i.e «Han spiser ikke, for skjell liker han ikke» = He does not eat, for shells he does not like. (Yes, I know, the sentence is a bit awkward).
Not an expert, but I read somewhere at some point in time, that an s following an r will always take on "sh" So far haven't noticed any examples inconsistent with this
1874
As a further example, my Norwegian friend was called Lars - it was pronounced 'Larsh'.
Normally it is. Many in my family are called Lars, it's a very nice Norwegian name.
That is true for some dialects. There are also dialecta where the r and s are pronounced separately.
It's the pronunciation consistent with the dialect taught be Duolingo.
I find it difficult to distinguish the meaning of "overfor" and "foran", would the correct use be something like:
"Butikken ligger overfor restauranten." [in which "overfor" is used when something is in front of other thing and IS facing that other thing], and:
"Han står foran huset sin." [in which "foran" is also used when something is in front of other thing but is NOT facing that other thing], am i correct?
That sounds right, although hopefully we can get someone more experienced to check! For me "in front of" would be something that's not facing the other subject/object.
In previous modules, "mann" has only ever meant "man" so now that it suddenly has to be husband doesn't make sense
I've added "her man" here (because I've heard it used in very informal English), but "husband" is the best translation here, no doubt. This is specifically the man she's married to.
Is context the only way to distinguish mann=man and mann=husband?
Is it basically when he is in the possession of a woman (or man)?
"Ektemann" means "husband" specifically, but you don't hear it quite as often as "mann" for "husband." Usually it's easy to tell the difference through context, and it usually is through possessive pronouns.
Good question. In Norwegian “sin/sitt/sine” points back to the subject of the sentence, while “hans/hennes/deres” points to something else than the subject. “Hun spiser med sin mann” = “She is eating with her (own) husband” “Hun spiser med hennes mann“ = “She is eating with her (another womans) husband”.
Wouldn't 'opposite', in this case, mean the same as 'across from'? That answer wasn't accepted.
- 305
No, not in this sentence. You could say "hun sitter på motsatt side av bordet" (she sits on the opposite side of the table). "Motsatt" IS used to indicate (often polar) differences. "Nei, du tar feil, det er motsatt" (=No, you're wrong, it's the opposite) - so I understand why you ask.
- 135
I do get it now, but back then I thought it would be "opposite to". Thanks for your help!
Does anybody know why husband & man are the same word when woman & wife are different words?
Many things are difficult to explain. Once husband was ektemann in Norwegian. Then somebody thought the "ekte"- part of the word was not important, so they started to say: Dette er mannen min.
Marriage is ekteskap. Husband is ektemann. Wife is kone. Not ektekone. Isn't that s bit strange?
I know this is off subject.
But for correct grammar, aren't we supposed to be using object + possession?
I've seen it used both ways since we've learned possession. I'm just trying to learn the absolute correct way
- 305
No, because that sentence has a different meaning. This sentence is about how she is sitting opposite her husband while eating, not that she is eating the opposite food to him. That would translate to "Hun spiser det motsatte av sin mann"
Like he eats Mcdonald's and she eats tofu, or something. It's obviously not what this sentence means.
This sentence is a bit difficult to understand.
Imagine a married couple in a restaurant having lunch. You want to describe them. You would say: " She is sitting opposite her husband. She is eating a chicken salad ." I don't think you would say: "She is eating opposite her husband."
Or: You are with a friend and you say: "Look, she is eating opposite her husband !!"
Your friend will understand that this is something she normally would not do.
Is it correct to use "foran" instead of "overfor" in this sentence? I understand both words means "in front of" / "opposite", but is there any difference while using them or can they be used interchangeably?
