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
As a further example, my Norwegian friend was called Lars - it was pronounced 'Larsh'.
It's the pronunciation consistent with the dialect taught be Duolingo.
It is the same in British English. They don't pronounce their "R"s (or at least not as closed as other languages), right? But you'll notice they do when followed by a vowel (yes, even if they are separate words). For example, in "after" the R would not be pronounced, but in "after all", they would pronounce the R. It's just the way they speak. It is the same with Norsk "rs" (even with a space between them).
In french, it's always like that, an 's' with 2 vowels, one on each side, will be pronounce a 'z'. For instance : -Je les ai vu (I have seen them) Will be pronounce : -Jelezaivu
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.
Does anybody know why husband & man are the same word when woman & wife are different words?
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
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.
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.
I do get it now, but back then I thought it would be "opposite to". Thanks for your help!