1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Norwegian (Bokmål)
  4. >
  5. "Vil du lære å lage mat?"

"Vil du lære å lage mat?"

Translation:Do you want to learn to cook?

June 24, 2015



Wait so lære can mean to learn OR to teach? Weird.


Yes. You can specify which through the rest of the sentence: "Hun lærer engelsk" = "She learns English." But then: "Hun lærer bort engelsk." = "She teaches English." Or "Hun lærer deg engelsk." = "She teaches you English." Still, there is a word that solely translates to "teach", and that is "undervise".


Great summary!


This was one of the most helpful things yet


thats very helpful, ty


So, if the sentence were "Vil du lære meg å lager mat?", then it would mean 'Do you want to teach me to cook?'. Stemmer det?


Maybe it's weird from an English POV, but this is very common in other Germanic languages.


It's actually present in English too, but it's colloquial and usually not considered proper. Or at least it used to be. Mostly it's only used in an idiom or two now like "that'll learn them," or "I'll learn you good."

Here's an interesting note about it taking from Websters https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/learn

Learn in the sense of "teach" dates from the 13th century and was standard until at least the early 19th. "made them drunk with true Hollands—and then learned them the art of making bargains — Washington Irving" But by Mark Twain's time it was receding to a speech form associated chiefly with the less educated. "never done nothing for three months but set in his back yard and learn that frog to jump — Mark Twain" The present-day status of learn has not risen. This use persists in speech, but in writing it appears mainly in the representation of such speech or its deliberate imitation for effect.


We had the same situation in Old English with one verb covering both the giving and receiving of knowledge. It became læran (to teach) and leornian (to learn). When people colloquially say "that'll learn you" (i.e. that will teach you a lesson), you can hear "læran" being used, preserved in this idiom but otherwise long dead.


Oh not so dead, troth I. Thine example givest me fine heart. Art thou a member ( if I may be so bold as to thou you) of the 'Save the English Familiar Forms of thy Language' Society?


Thou mayst. If thou wert (subj.) to be over bold, I should (conditional main clause to agree with subjunctive subordinate clause) rebuke thee mildly. ;) Not a member of any society; merely a "student of our sweet English tongue" ("To a Poet a Thousand Years Hence": James Elroy Flecker)


Come on—at least use the right verb inflections. :P


do feel free to correct me !


I was joking with you, mostly--though I was referring to using the 2nd person singular "givest" instead of the 3rd-person singular "giveth".

The older English verb inflections are fun, aren't they?


I dont understand anything that's going on but I like it.


UmmI think thats correctly spotted. It had a rather unfixed nature ..like some norwegian I guess, as it died out I think. I was also interested to see if the conjugations 'felt' correct inside myself as if there was some vestige of it still existing. And how it would feel if we had a formal and informal way of speaking to each other as so many languages still have.
I have heard that French too has some really old verb forms which are dusted off for comic effect now and then. Finally I have had a lively discussion about whether the subjunctive still exists in English in a usable way ( not just the two or three well-known phrases where it still occurs "god save the king" and such). It is all very interesting I find.


I understood it like this: Vil du lære og lage mat - Do you want to learn and make food? I find it difficult to distinguish å from og in conversation.


But the difference is subtle but there, "å" sounds like ah, ahhh that amusement park. and "og" sounds like oh but in a thick canadian accent. Oh, that ones a nice moose.


will you teach food making?


Can "how to" be added in the translation, just because? (Do you want to learn how to make food?)


I believe if you want that specific meaning you can add how in the sentence, either way it makes sense in both languages.


P3dja and DeGavinWoods I hope my comments will help each of you. I am from Canada and am very familiar with the phonemes used in Canadian English.

The Norwegian long "å" phoneme is similar to the one used in the Canadian English word "oh" but it is not the same. The Norwegian phoneme requires the mouth to be opened wider (with the lips consequently a bit more rounded).

"Å" never has the sound of the "a" in "amusement park". As mentioned above, "å" is similar to "oh" it is not the same. Norwegian and English each have 46 phonemes and although many of them sound the same to native speakers of one of the two languages, only nine are identical. Subtle differences occur because of slightly different tongue placements, mouth openings, lip rounding, muscle tension and so on.

The words "å" and "og" are very often (probably most often) pronounced in exactly the same manner in normal conversation, albeit in slow or paused conversation the "g" in "og" is pronounced so that the word sounds exactly like "tog" absent the "t". But, the same pronunciation, i.e., without the "g" may be used in all contexts.

Below, I will list random words in which the "å" phoneme is used regardless of spelling convention: årstid; blå; blåser; grå; gråter; måned; og; sover; tog; våt.

Hope that helps.


Except also to be remembered is, that accents do vary and the 46 phonemes of English change according to location. Probably Norwegian as well. There were 7 locations in a radius of 15 miles of here which had enough alteration of phonemes to enable even me when I was growing up, to place them. That is 1% of UK 's land area, representing therefore 1% of perhaps some 700 different pronunciations. I have seen it written that accent changes at regional level; town level; neighborhood level; and even to within individual families. We always smiled at the family down the road who pronounced Marmite 'incorrectly' (as Marmeet).


There are many differences in the pronunciation of a single word in both Norwegian and English. Those differences are usually phonetic. I'll try to explain. Phonemes are the smallest unit of speech distinguishing one word (or word element) from another. "Tab" and "tap" differ only because the /b/ in "tab" is a voiced phoneme (the vocal cords are vibrated) and the /p/ in "tap" is voiceless (the vocal cords are not vibrated). So, in English we recognize /b/ and /p/, which are the same in all ways except for voicing, as different phonemes because voicing the last phoneme changes the meaning of the word.

There are phonetic differences (variations in phonemes) that do not change the meaning of a word. Some people may pronounce "tap" by parting their lips and expelling a large volume of air immediately after forming the phoneme /p/ (aspirated phoneme). Others may pronounce "tap" leaving their lips closed after forming the phoneme /p/ (non-aspirated phoneme). And still others may open their lips slightly followed by the expulsion of a small volume of air in what might be considered "normal aspiration". So notwithstanding the fact that the same phoneme commonly has three phonetic variations, in English those three sounds are recognized as a single phoneme. In some languages aspirated and non-aspirated sounds distinguish words. In Norwegian tone distinguishes words. Tone doesn't distinguish words in English.


Enig. Anyone who thinks they know about languages doesn't really understand the full picture, I have found. It is all, layer upon layer, stranger than we realise..certainly learning a language has been like studying a PhD.


True! But, unless someone speaks two languages from the time he or she begins talking, my belief is that attaining native like proficiency in a second language is far more difficult than obtaining a Ph.D.


I see it as the brain having a one-time-learning-window. As sort of read-only device. Learning has been like forcing a door open with a strong spring against me. I am told that if one keeps going and tries one or more languages they become easier to learn. I can only put it down to nature's way to enhance the group over the outsiders. Our BBC actively promotes local dialects nowadays. It is clearly a political statement though arguable what exactly.


So if I wanted to say, "Do you want to teach cooking?" how would I say it in Norwegian?


Vil du lære matlaging. Maybe`

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