1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Norwegian (Bokmål)
  4. >
  5. "Hestene snakker ikke."

"Hestene snakker ikke."

Translation:The horses do not speak.

May 30, 2015



Unless one of them is Mr. Ed.


Or BoJack Horseman


The same thought came to my mind. ;)


They fed Mr. Ed peanut butter in every scene to achieve the effect. Think about how much peanut butter they must have used. Surely the highest peanut butter budget in TV history.


Or Twilight Sparkle.


or a Houyhnhm


Houyhnhnm* damn it


they better not. or else i'd be running away from those kinds of horses


Exactly. I heard it straight from the horses mouth.


We cannot hear it but they do...


The horses are mad at each other so they're not talking.


Can I say "Hestene ikke snakker" ?


Not really. The rule is: ikke goes after the verb.


Not a native speaker, but I suspect that the 2nd place rule for verbs would also apply (verb must be the 2nd grammatical element).


You don't say!


And neither do they.


Why is "The horses cannot speak." wrong? I want to know if there is a specific verb for cannot that can be interchangeable with ikke.


"The horses can't speak" would be "Hestene kan ikke snakke"


"The horses cannot speak" would be "Hestene kan ikke snakke". "Kan" is "can" and "ikke" is "not". You can't use "ikke" and "kan ikke" interchangeably, they are equivalent to "not"/"don't" and "cannot" in English.


This is hard to phrase for me, but I'm gonna try. Why is it "hestene snakker ikke" and not "hester snakker ikke"? I know this is about the definite suffix, but I wonder if that sentence sounds natural in Norwegian. I mean, in English you would say "horses don't speak", instead of "the horses don't speak", if you're referring to horses in general.


It may be confusing indeed, because it's the type of sentence where you'd never use a definite article in real life. You'd never say "horses from this particular group don't speak" because horses don't speak in general. So saying this about some specific horses doesn't add anything to the topic, does it?

However, this is not real life, this is Duolingo. Duolingo doesn't seem to care much if a sentence is useful in real life, it just tries to teach you the rules of the language. Here, the rule is: English definite article (the) in plural should be translated as "-ne" or "-ene" suffix.


Thank you for your answer, but I understand that already. Hehe My question is whether such a sentence would be correct/natural in Norwegian. 'Cause in Spanish, for example, you use the definite article when referring to something general. Ex: "Los caballos no hablan" "the horses don't speak". Referring to horses in general.


I can imagine saying this as an attempt at humor; e.g. you're in the pasture with someone who tells you a deep dark secret and then worries that it will get out, so you reply, "It's ok, your secret is safe with me, and the horses don't speak."


What is wrong with translating Hestene ikke snakker as Horses don't talk. Saying Horses don't speak seems the same to me. According to duo lingo the former (horses dont talk) is not correct.


The issue isn't with the verb, as either option would be acceptable. However, "hestene" is the definite form: "the horses".


i mean wouldnt it be weird if they do..

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