you guys can check this link to understand the differences between sitter and setter, legger and ligger! http://norskstudy.blogspot.com.tr/2015/08/different-between-sittersetter-and.html
As my peers have said before: Fantastic link, sebnemgirgin! Thank you very very much for sharing! There you have some lingots!
"Sitter" does not take a direct object. "Setter" does. One "is sitting" passively, in Norwegian, and one "sets oneself down" actively.
So if I understand correctly, "setter" would not translate to "sitting" in any situation, whereas "sitter" would translate ONLY to "sitting"?
Yes. When there's a direct object, use "sette." When there isn't, use "sitte."
Jeg tenker jeg forstår (apologies if I misused those two words). Thank you for clarifying!
Jeg kan si: kan jeg sitte her? men det heter: kan jeg sette meg på stolen?
So in this case "setter" takes an object "seg", which is himself, in this situation?
Is Norwegian "stolen" ever translated to English "the stool", or is an English stool only translated as "krakken"?
Since Norwegian uses separate verbs for sitting and sitting down, you can omit "ned" without losing the meaning.
Hi, There's no option to report, My answer should be accepted on this one, so here goes:
The man is seating himself on the chair.
The suggested translation provided was, "The man is setting himself on the chair." I can't speak for every English speaker out there, but that sounds, to me, like he's outside himself and placing his corporeal body onto the chair, like a dust cover or something. :0)
I thought so.. ich dachte so, men takk! : ) Btw, if i may ask you, Deliciae - hvordan si jeg: i thought so/ich dachte so eller i think so/ich denke so og thank you in advance.../danke im Voraus für... på norsk? tusen takk im Voraus X)
If you're using it on its own, like above, then "Det var det jeg trodde" (That's what I thought).
Yes, if you were referring to a less comfy type of chair.
Both languages make a distinction between sitting on dining chairs and the like, but in comfy recliners and similar.
Ohh very interesting insight, as always - years and years already living the English language and never noticed there was an actual difference between the two!! : D
Hehe, I probably wouldn't have given it much thought either, if I didn't have to explain it. :)
Heheh, exactly right?! : ) Never had to explain it to anyone myself, so... hahahah Nah.. im just stupid, i know. X)
Are there rules for knowing when to pronounce the suffixes such as "en" on the end of "stolen"? In the audio for this sentence, I don't hear it...
It depends on dialect, how fast the word is said, and whether it's a formal occasion which calls for more proper enunciation, but the "e" in "-en" usually ranges from faint to inaudible.
Similarly, the "t" in "-et" will usually be silent.
The "a" in the definite feminine ending "-a" should be pronounced.
You use "ned" with verbs indicating movement, and "nede" for static location. So it's "ned" for the process of getting seated, and "nede" to describe where you are seated.
This same pattern holds true for quite a few other adverb pairs like "opp/oppe" and "bort/borte", and a neat way I've seen for remembering which is which, is to imagine that the last "e" is so loosely fastened to the rest of the word, that it falls off whenever it starts moving.
Although "to sit" is most frequently an intransitive verb, in Western Canada, it is also a transitive verb -- used in colloquial speech. It is very common to hear, "Sit yourself down!" whereas "Set yourself down", is virtually unheard. Because "ned" need not be translated into English for the essence of the message to be conveyed, the translation that would, to most people sound both usual and correct is, 'The man is sitting himself in (or into) the chair."
Almost invariably, Western Canadians, use "sit" in reference to an action taken by a person (or an animal) affecting himself/ herself/ itself and not in respect to an action affecting another person or thing whereas they use "set" in reference to an action that an individual (or an animal) takes in respect to someone or something else. Example, "He set the plates on the table."
It sounds like the 'r' in setter and the 's' in set combine to make the 'sh' sound, like in "norsk." Is that true? Can they do that? Or is it just an issue with the audio?
The English pick-the-words translation is grammatically incorrect. It offers only "in" not "on". To sit "in the chair" is rarely used in modern English, and would only be used for, say, an armchair (something you can sink into).
Why is here the pronunciation of "seg" different? It sounds like the "sh" sound in english (e.g. "SHe"), but in previous lessons it was "s" like "See"
could you leave out seg and still have a grammatically correct sentence? Or would a native speaker still understand you?
"Å sette" takes a direct object (while "å sitte" does not) so i believe you would need "seg" (or another object) for the sentence to be grammatically correct.
That's great! And a good thing to remember the next time you run into a confusing concept. :)
One cannot "sit in" the chair. Normal people sit on chairs but norwegians have their magic :d