 Return to the DANISH Archive | Forward to the Current DANISH Forum |
| Ulven | Saturday 19th of March 2005 10:24:09 PM |
| Hvad sagde han? - Hvad sagde han? (What did he say?)
Et ordspil har fundet det danske forum (A word-game finds the Danish forum)... finally! We simply give a word for the next person to use in a sentence. With the word you choose, give its gender if a noun, please. Or, you may simply chose an adverb, adjective etc. Include English Phrases, please? It will help us understand what is being said, or what was attempted at being said:D. And natives, feel free to splice corrections between our posts, even if you don't feel like playing yourself. But if so, can you remind the next player what the next word was that they're suposed to use? Mange tak!:) We might aswell go alphabetically, to give it some pattern. (It doesn't have to begin with the next letter, though. eg. bo--->bog-->boghandel). I'll begin with the first word in my Danish dictionary; | |
| Ulven | Saturday 19th of March 2005 10:27:07 PM |
| - [b]Abbedi, [i]-t[/i][/b] (abbey)
Munken har boet i abbedit hele sit liv. -[i]The monk has lived in the abbey all his life[/i] næste ord (next word)> [b]abe -[i]n[/i][/b] (monkey) | |
| Freja | Saturday 19th of March 2005 10:35:33 PM |
| - [i]Hvad så han?[/i] means [i]What did he [b]see?[/b][/i]
[i]Hvad sagde han?[/i] means [i]What did he say?[/i] "Ett" is spelled [i]et[/i]. I can't think of any words having double consonant in the end. I don't know why, but [i]slår Danmark[/i] just doesn't sound right. I don't know what to say, haha. Embarrassing! "Rammer", maybe? | |
| Dam_skippy | Saturday 19th of March 2005 11:08:52 PM |
| - Aben skal gå til lufthavnen i morgen. (The monkey is going to walk to the airport tomorow.)
nyt ord: at bo (to live, reside) | |
| Ulven | Sunday 20th of March 2005 04:10:12 PM |
| - Nej, Dam_Skippy. Det er ikke sandt. Jeg er her at bo... PUNK!
-[i]No, Dam_Skippy. That's not true. I am here to stay... PUNK![/i] [i]*'punk' is English inflection, not Danish[/i]. [b]bog [i]en[/i][/b] (book) | |
| CharonPlu | Sunday 20th of March 2005 05:43:24 PM |
| - Munken holder af læse hans bog.
(The munk likes to read his book.) > nyt ord: dame -en (lady) | |
| Ulven | Sunday 20th of March 2005 09:11:52 PM |
| - Damen visede munkens bog til sin ven, og begyndte de at snakke om den.
-[i]The lady showed the monk's book to her friend, and they began to talk about it.[/i] [b]at dreje[/b] to turn (on = op for, off = af for) *you don't have to use the off/on, I just included them incase. | |
| Dam_skippy | Monday 21st of March 2005 12:16:24 AM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Ulven[/i]
Nej, Dam_Skippy. Det er ikke sandt. Jeg er her at bo... PUNK! -[i]No, Dam_Skippy. That's not true. I am here to stay... PUNK![/i] [i]*'punk' is English inflection, not Danish[/i]. [b]bog [i]en[/i][/b] (book)[/quote] I'm confused about what's not true, and why I'm a PUNK. But moving on.... De drejede af for fjernsynet fordi det var højlydt. (They turned off the televison because it was loud.) I doubt I wrote this correctly. at tåle (et, t) - to tolerate, endure | |
| Ulven | Monday 21st of March 2005 12:48:19 AM |
| - I was implying that I was that 'monkey' going to the airport:P. My silliness becomes obscurity, sometimes. Whoops! | |
| Dam_skippy | Monday 21st of March 2005 12:57:22 AM |
| - Sorry...My fault for not catching that. I feel slow now.
silliness is only obscurity in the eyes of those who don't appreciate it. Or in my case, those that just messed up. i feel like an ass. | |
| Freja | Monday 21st of March 2005 04:59:38 AM |
| - [quote]
Nej, Dam_Skippy. Det er ikke sandt. Jeg er her at bo... PUNK! -[i]No, Dam_Skippy. That's not true. I am here to stay... PUNK![/i] [/quote] [i]Stay[/i] in this context means [i]blive[/i] [i]Jeg er her for at blive[/i] [quote]Damen visede munkens bog til sin ven, og begyndte de at snakke om den. -The lady showed the monk's book to her friend, and they began to talk about it.[/quote] [i]Vise[/i] is not "visede" in past tense, but [i]vis[b]te[/b][/i]. The last part [i]og begyndte de at snakke om den[/i] should be like the English one; subject before verb. Otherwise you have to add "så" before "begyndte". [quote]Munken holder af læse hans bog. (The munk likes to read his book.)[/quote] You just forgot "at" before læse. [i]Munken holder af [b]at[/b] læse hans bog[/i] When you say [i]hans bog[/i], you say the monk likes to read another male's book. Otherwise you have to say [i]sin bog[/i], to show that the monk likes to read his own book. [quote]De drejede af for fjernsynet fordi det var højlydt. (They turned off the televison because it was loud.) I doubt I wrote this correctly.[/quote] It's not correct. You would use [i]slukke[/i]. [i]De slukkede (for) fjernsynet, fordi det var højlydt[/i] You use [i]dreje[/i] when you're talking about directions. [i][b]Turn to the right - Dreje til højre[/b][/i] [i][b]Turn the corner - Dreje om hjørnet[/b][/i] etc. [i][b]What is it about? - Hvad drejer det sig om?[/b][/i] | |
| Ulven | Monday 21st of March 2005 12:59:44 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Freja[/i][quote]De drejede af for fjernsynet fordi det var højlydt.
(They turned off the televison because it was loud.) I doubt I wrote this correctly.[/quote] It's not correct. You would use [i]slukke[/i]. [i]De slukkede (for) fjernsynet, fordi det var højlydt[/i] You use [i]dreje[/i] when you're talking about directions. [i][b]Turn to the right - Dreje til højre[/b][/i] [i][b]Turn the corner - Dreje om hjørnet[/b][/i] etc. [i][b]What is it about? - Hvad drejer det sig om?[/b][/i][/quote]Undskyld! Det var også min fejl. So, I guess 'op for' is used as in "I turned [i]on to[/i] the highway"? (I'll give it a go på dansk- "Jeg drejede op for landevejen"? My dictionary gives no context. It just says under [b]dreje[/b]- turn .[i]v[/i]- ...op for = on, ...af for = off. And on the past tense of [b]vise[/b], either [i]visede[/i] is an outdated conjugation, or this site is inaccurate [url]http://verbix.com/webverbix/go.asp?T1=vise&D1=26&H1=126[/url]. This is a good source for Danish conjugation, even if it does make the occasional mistake. I know its Swedish conjugations are sometime the outdated way. I should send them a email, actually. Maybe no-one tells them of their mistakes. Anyway, you're a legend, Freja. Tak for det! the next word is still [b]at tåle[/b] - to tolerate/endure | |
| Freja | Monday 21st of March 2005 06:25:51 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Ulven[/i]
[quote][i]Originally posted by Freja[/i][quote]De drejede af for fjernsynet fordi det var højlydt. (They turned off the televison because it was loud.) I doubt I wrote this correctly.[/quote] It's not correct. You would use [i]slukke[/i]. [i]De slukkede (for) fjernsynet, fordi det var højlydt[/i] You use [i]dreje[/i] when you're talking about directions. [i][b]Turn to the right - Dreje til højre[/b][/i] [i][b]Turn the corner - Dreje om hjørnet[/b][/i] etc. [i][b]What is it about? - Hvad drejer det sig om?[/b][/i][/quote]Undskyld! Det var også min fejl. So, I guess 'op for' is used as in "I turned [i]on to[/i] the highway"? (I'll give it a go på dansk- "Jeg drejede op for landevejen"? My dictionary gives no context. It just says under [b]dreje[/b]- turn .[i]v[/i]- ...op for = on, ...af for = off. And on the past tense of [b]vise[/b], either [i]visede[/i] is an outdated conjugation, or this site is inaccurate [url]http://verbix.com/webverbix/go.asp?T1=vise&D1=26&H1=126[/url]. This is a good source for Danish conjugation, even if it does make the occasional mistake. I know its Swedish conjugations are sometime the outdated way. I should send them a email, actually. Maybe no-one tells them of their mistakes. Anyway, you're a legend, Freja. Tak for det! [/quote] Tænk ikke på det! Vi laver alle fejl! [i]I turned on to the highway[/i] would be something like [i]Jeg drejede [b]ud på/over på[/b] landevejen[/i]. It depends on where you're driving in the first place. It depends on where the highway is. [i]Vise[/i] is in past tense [i]vis[b]te[/b][/i]. Other verbs are conjugated like that. [i]fortælle[/i] - [i]fortal[b]te[/b][/i] [i]lære[/i] - [i]lær[b]te[/b][/i] [i]tale[/i] - [i]tal[b]te[/b][/i] [i]tælle[/i] - [i]tal[b]te[/b][/i] and other verbs, you can choose: [i]smile[/i] - [i]smil[b]ede[/b][/i] - [i]smil[b]te[/b][/i] [i]grine[/i] - [i]grin[b]ede[/b][/i] - [i]grin[b]te[/b][/i] I think you should send them a email. Tusind tak! Det var da så lidt! Så længe jeg hjælper. | |
| Freja | Tuesday 22nd of March 2005 11:03:37 PM |
| - Hun kunne ikke tåle synet af ham
[i]She couldn't stand the sight of him[/i] Det næste ord: [b]Drivvåd[/b] [i](-t, -e; -ere -est)[/i] soaked, drenched (adjective) [i]Drivvåd[/i] is formed by [b]drive[/b] (here, meaning pour) + [b]våd[/b] (wet) | |
| Ulven | Thursday 24th of March 2005 11:47:43 PM |
| - Jeg blev drivvåd på grund av at jeg faldt i en pyt.
-[i]I became soaked because I fell in a puddle[/i]. [b]at drømme[/b] (to dream) | |
| Freja | Friday 25th of March 2005 04:34:59 AM |
| - Jeg blev drivvåd på grund [b]af[/b], at jeg faldt i en pyt.
"Av" is something you say when you are being hurt ;) | |
| Freja | Friday 25th of March 2005 04:43:47 AM |
| - Jeg drømte en drøm i nat
[i]I dreamt a dream last night[/i] Det næste ord: [b]at dyrke[/b] [i](-r,-de,-t)[/i] - to cultivate, grow - to idolize, worship[/i] [i][b]dyrke[/b][/i] comes from the Old Icelandic word [i]dyrka[/i] meaning [i]praise[/i] | |
| Dam_skippy | Friday 25th of March 2005 05:56:29 AM |
| - Jeg dryker Freja og hendes utroligt kendskab af sproge.
I wasn't sure about "of" here, or the plural of "sprog". I wasn't sure about any of it, actually. :P det næste ord: siden - since | |
| Ulven | Friday 25th of March 2005 02:59:51 PM |
| - ha ha, Freja. My [b]av[/b] was actually my trademark 'Swedanish':)lol. at-att, af-av etc. The hazard of learning both simultaneously :s.lol | |
| Freja | Friday 25th of March 2005 09:34:54 PM |
| - [quote] Jeg dryker Freja og hendes utroligt kendskab af sproge.
I wasn't sure about "of" here, or the plural of "sprog". I wasn't sure about any of it, actually. :P [/quote] [i]Jeg dyrker Freja og hendes utrolig[b]e[/b] kendskab [b]til[/b] [b]sprog[/b][/i] You were sure, actually. It was good :p - Bare husk på, jeg har brug for vand ;) To say "hendes utrolige kendskab" is like saying "det utrolige kendskab". You don't use "af" because it's called "at kende [i]til[/i] noget". [i]Sprog[/i] is the same in plural - like other words: [i]Spørgsmål[/i] - Question(s) [i]Svar[/i] - Answer(s) [i]Mus[/i] - Mouse/mice [i]Sko[/i] - Shoe(s) Det næste ord: siden - since | |
| Freja | Friday 25th of March 2005 09:39:02 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Ulven[/i]
ha ha, Freja. My [b]av[/b] was actually my trademark 'Swedanish':)lol. at-att, af-av etc. The hazard of learning both simultaneously :s.lol[/quote] Haha, I know, but in this context [b]av[/b] is the 'swedest' thing to say :p | |
| Ulven | Sunday 27th of March 2005 07:35:15 PM |
| - Siden jeg var en dreng, jeg har findet på mange dum idé.
-[i]Since I was a boy, I've dreamt up many silly ideas.[/i] [i](*plural- of dum= dum(e), and plural of idé= idé(e)? Ulven ved ikke om det:D.)[/i] *Om ordet [b]at dyrke[/b], er det bare sammenhæng som fortæller hvis ordet betyder 'cultivate' eller 'idolize', eller er det lille ord lig at/af/til/om etc., som fortæller meningen? -[i]About the word [b]at dyrke[/b], is it only context that determines the meaning of the word between 'cultivate' and 'idolize', or are there little words like at/af/til/om that determine the difference in meaning?[/i] det næste ord er > [b]at skræmme[/b] (to scare) | |
| Freja | Tuesday 29th of March 2005 10:11:22 PM |
| - Plural of dum is dumme and plural of idé is ideer (Frejaen ved det;))
I think you have to put in "nu", otherwise you should use "eftersom" instead of "siden", and I think you would use "er" instead of "var". Otherwise you would say something like [i]Siden jeg nu var en dreng, fandt jeg på mange dumme ideer[/i]. You can say it like you said it, but it could give a different meaning. Actually it really depends on what you mean, lol:D [i]Siden jeg nu er en dreng, [b]har jeg[/b] f[b]u[/b]ndet på mange dumme ideer[/i] [i]Siden jeg var dreng, har jeg fundet på mange dumme ideer[/i] [i]Efter som jeg er dreng, har jeg fundet på mange dumme ideer[/i] Ja, det er bare sammenhængen. Du behøver ikke bruge at,af, til osv. At sige, du dyrker nogen, virker stærkere end bare at sige, du beundrer nogen. Det næste ord er stadig: at skræmme (to scare) | |
| Sunday 03rd of April 2005 12:31:10 AM | |
| - Filmen skræmmede pigen, og hun kunnede (kunne?) ikke sove.
mit nyt ord: at åbne (ede, et) - to open | |
| Dam_skippy | Sunday 03rd of April 2005 12:33:13 AM |
| - Filmen skræmmede pigen, og hun kunne(kunnede?) ikke sove.
The moie scared the girl, and she couldn't sleep. is it kunne or kunnede? mit nyt ord: at åbne (ede, et) - to open | |
| Freja | Sunday 03rd of April 2005 12:51:14 AM |
| - It is [i]kunne[/i] and is irregular like [i]skræmte[/i]
Dit ny[b]e[/b] ord er at åbne ;) | |
| Ulven | Wednesday 06th of April 2005 05:46:05 PM |
| - Når åbnede jeg døren, der stod han.
-[i]When I opened the door, there he stood.[/i] Mit næste ord er> [b]at ligge[/b] (to lie)* [i]as in bed, not as in deception[/i]. If anyone is wondering why Freja corrected Dam_Skippy's "Mit nyt ord" to "Mit nye ord", it's because when you have a pronoun (or whatever mit/min/det/den/denne are called) the adjective (ny, in this case) takes the plural form. So; "Ordet er ny[b]t[/b]" (the word is new) but "Det ny[b]e[/b] ord" (the new word). | |
| Twizzla | Wednesday 06th of April 2005 07:16:17 PM |
| - I'm a regular reader of everything in here, its good to see the Danish forum livening up! :) But unfortunately for me university involves lots of work as well :( | |
| Jenkie | Wednesday 06th of April 2005 10:47:20 PM |
| - Jeg lå på stranden og tog sol.
'lå' is past tense of 'ligge' Ulven, just to correct you ;) when you are talking about something in past tense, 'when' is called 'da' in Danish. The correct sentence is then, 'Da jeg åbnede døren, stod han dér.' 'stod han dér', the reason for the accent above the e is (not many danes knows this!) when you are using 'der' as a position as in "He stood there *points*" then there actually should be an accent above the e. It is NOT very important though as only few danes know this. :) Mit næste ord er ~~> at hoppe (to jump) - but usually without a run-up. With a run-up it is 'at springe'. | |
| Freja | Thursday 07th of April 2005 03:48:08 AM |
| - Jenkie, så er jeg glad for at fortælle dig, jeg er en af de få danskere :p - eller jeg var egentlig ikke klar over, hvorfor jeg gjorde det, men ja..
Nå, var vejret [i]så[/i] godt? Jeg ved snart ikke.. Bliver det nogensinde sommer.. eller bare forår? Jeg venter stadig tålmodigt :) | |
| Ulven | Thursday 07th of April 2005 09:50:19 PM |
| - På grund af min hund at have bare tre bene, hun hopper op og ned, og hun springer om overalt som en kænguru.
-[i]Because my dog has only three legs, she hops up and down, and jumps all over the place like a kangaroo[/i] *I don't like my chances of getting a sentence that long mistake-free. I assume 'at springe' was the best word to use to describe a kangaroo's motion, but I threw in 'at hoppe' aswell because they do hop around on the same spot sometimes :Dlol. Det følgende ord er> [b]fordi[/b] (because/as) -[i]The following word is>[/i] | |
| Jenkie | Friday 08th of April 2005 02:36:37 AM |
| - Jeg elsker sommeren, fordi det er så varmt.
[i]-I love the summer because it's so hot-[/i] Næh Freja, jeg drømmer bare :) Gid det måtte blive sommer i morgen. Ok Ulven, ill just give you the correct sentence with a few comments: På grund af at min hund har* tre ben**, hopper hun op og ned, og hun springer rundt*** over det hele som en kænguru. * present tense of 'at have' is 'har' :) ** 'et ben' is called 'flere ben' [i]-more legs-[/i] in plural (irregular) *** you just chose the wrong prepostition ;) Next word --> et parti [i]-a political party-[/i] | |
| Freja | Friday 08th of April 2005 04:09:11 AM |
| - Tja, drømmer vi ikke bare allesammen? Ja, gerne! Hvor bliver den sol af? :)
Jenkie, lyder det ikke bedre at sige [i]fordi[/i] i stedet for [i]på grund af[/i] i denne sammenhæng? - og egentlig ville du vel bruge [i]hun[/i] som subjekt for begge verber, altså [i](..)hopper hun op og ned og springer rundt[/i]. Jeg ved godt, det ikke lyder helt godt at bruge to [i]og'er[/i] så tæt på hinanden, men alligevel.. ;) Ulveven, you would use [i]kun[/i] instead of [i]bare[/i] in this context. Why, I can't explain right now - I have to think :p | |
| Jenkie | Friday 08th of April 2005 06:40:22 PM |
| - Jeg vil ikke sige det lyder bedre at sige 'fordi' men det er klart, det kan også bruges. Det var bare fordi Ulven nu brugte den vending, så ville det være syndt at ændre ;)
Og jo, du har også ret i at man ofte kun ville bruge 'hun' én gang, men da det ikke er forkert at bruge det som Ulv gør, vil jeg ikke rette det. | |
| Freja | Friday 08th of April 2005 08:06:46 PM |
| - Hmm, vi tænker jo alle forskelligt, hehe ;)
Nej, det siger jeg heller ikke. Men det var bare, fordi [i]she[/i] i den engelske oversættelse kun blev brugt én gang.. Men nok om dét ;) | |
| Ulven | Saturday 09th of April 2005 12:30:34 AM |
| - So, the usage of 'hun' is the same as in English 'she'? You don't need to repeat it when it's obvious you're still talking about the same person.
It's good to have two perspectives on what should b corrected and what shouldn't. I guess my opinion would be that even if it's not the best choice of words, so long as it doesn't sound 'bizarre :S' it would be alright for a beginner to use it. But, it's very individual, as we all learn different ways. *Finaly I find out what 'kun' means:). It always looked like two verbs when I'd see "...kan kun..." in a sentence together. It really confused me :S lol. And, why is the word order 'hopper hun...' instead of 'hun hopper'? Is it because the first part of the sentence starts with "på grund af...". If it's a second clause to a sentence, you invert the "hun hopper", is that right? I'm understanding the inversion a bit, but I always get it wrong:)lol. Doesn't matter, I'll eventually learn to judge when to invert and when not to. Det nye ord er endnu> [b]et parti[/b] (a political party) | |
| Ulven | Friday 22nd of April 2005 12:38:52 AM |
| - Jeg tilhøre ikke til nogle parti, fordi jeg synes ikke om politike. Politike deprimerer mig.
-[i]I don't belong to a political party because I don't like politics. Politics depresses me[/i]. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *I was going to say "politics [u]makes me[/u] depressed". Is there any correct way in Danish to say "blah blah.. [u]makes me feel[/u]... so and so"? eg. "This meal [u]is making me[/u] thirsty" "This person [u]makes me[/u] angry" And, at the end of my first sentence I wanted to emphasize using 'at all', but didn't know how to do so in Danish. eg. "I don't like him [u]at all[/u]" I assume Danish has its way of strengthening the emotion of a statement in a similarly common way as 'at all' in English? Or as a phrase, "Not at all!"? So it's stronger than simple "Nej". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [i]I'll skip the letter 'q' because it's not a Danish letter as such[/i]. den næste ord er> [b]at rejse[/b] (to travel) | |
| Jenkie | Friday 22nd of April 2005 02:36:40 AM |
| - makes me = gør mig
this meal is making me thirsty - det her måltid gør mig tørstig This person makes me angry - den her person gør mig vred ..at all - overhovedet ikke I don't like him at all - Jeg kan overhovedet ikke lide ham This doesn't taste gd at all - det her smager overhovedet ikke godt | |
| Freja | Sunday 24th of April 2005 08:11:46 PM |
| - At rejse er at leve
[i]To travel is to live[/i] Jeg tilhøre ikke til nogle parti, fordi jeg synes ikke om politike. Politike deprimerer mig. [i]Jeg tilhøre[b]r[/b] ikke [b]noget parti[/b], fordi jeg [b]ikke synes[/b] om [b]politik[/b]. [b]Politik[/b] deprimerer mig[/i] Det nye ord er [b]sagn[/b] [i](-et,-,-ene)[/i] [i]- legend[/i] [i]Sagn[/i] comes from the Germanic verb [i]saγēn[/i] - to say | |
| Ulven | Sunday 24th of April 2005 11:52:12 PM |
| - Jeg tror absolut, at jeg er jo et sagn.
-[i]I truly believe that I'm a total legend.[/i].:D [b]sammen[/b] (together) | |
| Freja | Wednesday 27th of April 2005 02:28:00 AM |
| - Sorry, I didn't explain the word very well.
[i]Sagn[/i] is a legend - a story. You would say: Jeg tror absolut, jeg er en [i](sand)[/i] legende [i]I absolutely think that I'm a (true) legend[/i] You can't use 'jo' in this context, unless you say [i]Jeg tror jo, at...[/i] but you're not expressing the same thing [i](en) legende[/i] - legend (a person, a story) [i](et) sagn[/i] - legend (a story) [i](en) myte[/i] - myth | |
| Ulven | Thursday 28th of April 2005 06:40:07 PM |
| - Så skal jeg prøve det igen.
Har hører du sagnet av Freja, den danske gudinde? Det har jeg hørt ikke endnu. -[i]Have you heard the legend of Freja, the Danish Goddess? I haven't heard it yet.[/i] Jeg ved ikke hvis hun er en gudinde eller en prinsesse. Navnet 'Freja' er [u]jo[/u] fra en danskes myte? -[i]I don't know if she is a Godess or a Princess. The name 'Freja' does come form Danish mythology, yes?[/i] *Igen, jeg er sikker ikke hvordan at bruge ordet 'jo':D. -[i]Again, I don't know how to use the word 'jo' properly. I'm still experimenting. :D næste ord er endnu> [b]sammen[/b] (together) | |
| Freja | Friday 29th of April 2005 04:28:22 PM |
| - Har hører du sagnet av Freja, den danske gudinde? Det har jeg hørt ikke endnu.
[i]Har [b]du hørt[/b] sagnet [b]om[/b] Freja, den danske gudinde? Jeg har ikke hørt det endnu[/i] [i]Av[/i] skal du jo stadig kun bruge, når du slår dig, eller når du taler svensk ;) Freja er en gudinde, en kærlighedsgudinde (sådan strengt taget, hun er mere end det). Navnet 'Freja' er jo fra den nordiske mytologi ;) Jo da, Ulveven! Her brugte du [i]jo[/i] rigtigt! næste ord er stadig> [b]sammen[/b] (together) | |
| thiudans | Thursday 12th of May 2005 08:24:13 AM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Dam_skippy[/i]
Jeg dryker Freja og hendes utroligt kendskab af sproge. I wasn't sure about "of" here, or the plural of "sprog". I wasn't sure about any of it, actually. :P det næste ord: siden - since[/quote] For to år siden boede jeg som student i Nederland. Two years ago (i.e. since two years) I lived as a student in Holland. Next word: at sladre (to gossip) | |
| Ulven | Tuesday 17th of May 2005 10:00:20 AM |
| - De to piger sladrer med hindanden om drenge for ofte.
-[i]Those two girls gossip with each other about boys too much.[/i] den ikke så nye ord er (:p lol) (next word)> [b]sammen[/b] (together) | |
| Jenkie | Wednesday 18th of May 2005 11:04:04 PM |
| - Sammen med Helene gik Oscar en tur i parken.
-[i]Together with Helene Oscar went for a walk in the park[/i] Next word would be... [b]leksikon[/b] (encyclopedia) | |
| Freja | Friday 10th of June 2005 04:19:54 PM |
| - Leksika kan være meget nyttige
[i]Encyclopedias can be very useful[/i] ..og det næste ord er [b]egern[/b] [i](-et,-,ene) - squirrel[/i] [i]actual meaning: The one who climbs oak trees with a curved tail[/i] [i][u]Eg[/u]ern (squirrel)[/i] - [i][u]Eg[/u]etræ (oak tree)[/i] | |
| thiudans | Saturday 11th of June 2005 12:36:46 AM |
| - Bedstemor plejede hver dag at sætte på verandaen en tallerken nødder og sæd for det grå egern.
Grandma used to set a plate of nuts and seeds on the porch every day for the gray squirrel. [quote][i]Originally posted by Freja[/i] Leksika kan være meget nyttige [i]Encyclopedias can be very useful[/i] ..og det næste ord er [b]egern[/b] [i](-et,-,ene) - squirrel[/i] [i]actual meaning: The one who climbs oak trees with a curved tail[/i] [i][u]Eg[/u]ern (squirrel)[/i] - [i][u]Eg[/u]etræ (oak tree)[/i][/quote] det nye ord er "tvetydig" (ambiguous) | |
| Freja | Saturday 11th of June 2005 04:57:52 PM |
| - Bedstemor plejede hver dag at sætte på verandaen en tallerken nødder og sæd for det grå egern
[i]Bedstemor plejede hver dag at sætte [b]en tallerken nødder og sæd[/b] på verandaen [b]til[/b] det grå egern[/i] Alt, hvad jeg siger, kan betragtes som tvetydigt [i]Everything I say can be regarded as ambiguous [All what I say can being-regarded as ambiguous][/i] Det næste ord er et meget brugt, uregelmæssigt udsangsord [b]at have - jeg har - jeg havde - jeg har/havde haft[/b] | |
| thiudans | Sunday 12th of June 2005 05:04:01 AM |
| - Thanks for the order fix... I was however concerned that such order could be seen to mean, at verandaen [hører] til egernet. "the porch belonging to the gray squirrel". I suppose this would not be though of in this context.
[quote][i]Originally posted by Freja[/i] Bedstemor plejede hver dag at sætte på verandaen en tallerken nødder og sæd for det grå egern [i]Bedstemor plejede hver dag at sætte [b]en tallerken nødder og sæd[/b] på verandaen [b]til[/b] det grå egern[/i] Alt, hvad jeg siger, kan betragtes som tvetydigt [i]Everything I say can be regarded as ambiguous [All what I say can being-regarded as ambiguous][/i] Det næste ord er et meget brugt, uregelmæssigt udsangsord [b]at have - jeg har - jeg havde - jeg har/havde haft[/b] [/quote] | |
| Ulven | Sunday 12th of June 2005 01:45:04 PM |
| - Velkommen, Thiudans.:)
Her har jeg haft mange god gange her. -[i]I've had many good times here.[/i] (Ska vi se, hvis Ulveven er riktigt med ord ordenen igen:D) -([i]Let's see if Ulveven is right with the word order again[/i]) [quote]Alt, hvad jeg siger, kan betragtes som tvetydigt Everything I say can be regarded as ambiguous[/quote]Det er til tiden (about time), at jeg spørger om al/alt/alle. -It's about time I asked about al/alt/alle. When do I use the plural 'alle', and when do I keep it singular (al/alt)? *[i]Whoops. Vi behøver et nye ord, er det riktigt? Selvfølgeligt, gør vi det.[/i] -Whoops. We need a new word, don't we? Of course we do. >[b]denne[/b] (this) | |
| Freja | Tuesday 14th of June 2005 05:08:21 PM |
| -
Her har jeg haft mange god gange her [i]Her har jeg moret mig mange gange[/i] -[i]Her har jeg tit hygget mig[/i] ..Haha, jeg kan ikke lige komme på én oversættelse :p Ulveven, din ordstilling er røget til tops. Den var korrekt ;) Det er til tiden (about time), at jeg spørger om al/alt/alle. [i]Det er [b]på tide[/b], jeg spørger om [u]alt[/u][/i] -It's about time I asked about al/alt/alle. [quote]When do I use the plural 'alle', and when do I keep it singular (al/alt)?[/quote] Her er et lille "skema" - også med ord, der ligner :D [i]Common - Neuter - Plural[/i] al - alt- alle nogen - noget - nogle [i]or[/i] nogen (I'll explain this later) ingen - intet - ingen mangen - mangt - mange anden - andet - andre - - somme enhver - ethvert - So, you have to use [i]alt[/i] because you're talking about something abstract - [b]denne[/b] | |
| Freja | Tuesday 14th of June 2005 05:10:27 PM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by thiudans[/i]
Thanks for the order fix... I was however concerned that such order could be seen to mean, at verandaen [hører] til egernet. "the porch belonging to the gray squirrel". I suppose this would not be though of in this context. [quote][i]Originally posted by Freja[/i] Bedstemor plejede hver dag at sætte på verandaen en tallerken nødder og sæd for det grå egern [i]Bedstemor plejede hver dag at sætte [b]en tallerken nødder og sæd[/b] på verandaen [b]til[/b] det grå egern[/i] Alt, hvad jeg siger, kan betragtes som tvetydigt [i]Everything I say can be regarded as ambiguous [All what I say can being-regarded as ambiguous][/i] Det næste ord er et meget brugt, uregelmæssigt udsangsord [b]at have - jeg har - jeg havde - jeg har/havde haft[/b] [/quote][/quote] No.. If you say [i]for egernet[/i] it sounds like bedstemor is doing it instead of egernet - that egernet usually does it.. if that makes any sense? :p | |
| thiudans | Wednesday 15th of June 2005 03:26:06 AM |
| - Denne er en flot sætning.
This is a nice sentence. [quote] -Whoops. We need a new word, don't we? Of course we do. >[b]denne[/b] (this)[/quote] nyt ord: forbindelse (connection, relation, context). I ran across this one a lot while translating news. Jeg løbede tit på dette mens jeg oversat avisen. | |
| Freja | Wednesday 15th of June 2005 03:49:16 AM |
| - Denne er en flot sætning.
[i][b]Dette[/b] er en flot sætning[/i] You're talking about something abstract, so you must use "dette" Jeg løbede tit på dette mens jeg oversat avisen [i]Jeg [b]løb[/b] tit på [b]denne her*[/b], mens jeg [b]oversatte[/b] avisen[/i] *You're talking about a word, something concrete, so you must use "denne" - otherwise you have to say "dette ord" nyt ord: forbindelse (connection, relation, context). | |
| thiudans | Wednesday 15th of June 2005 07:58:45 AM |
| - [quote][i]Originally posted by Freja[/i]
Denne er en flot sætning. [i][b]Dette[/b] er en flot sætning[/i] You're talking about something abstract, so you must use "dette" Jeg løbede tit på dette mens jeg oversat avisen [i]Jeg [b]løb[/b] tit på [b]denne her*[/b], mens jeg [b]oversatte[/b] avisen[/i] *You're talking about a word, something concrete, so you must use "denne" - otherwise you have to say "dette ord" nyt ord: forbindelse (connection, relation, context). [/quote] I trust your knowledge of danish, but sætning is fælleskøn. The sentence is referring to itself, and so it would according to the rules be "denne". Since it sounds strange to you there must be another rule at work here, creating a further division between the deixic pronoun "this" and the sentence. For instance if I simply switched the word order, it would read "Denne sætning er flot". Dette obviously would not work here. It must be therefore a different usage for which I cannot find a rule. It is very strange that a word should be considered fælles when it is 'ordet' (altså intetkøn). If I replace the pronoun with the word it refers to, it would read "Jeb løb tit på ordet (or, det her ord) mens... The parallel divisions between grammatical case and materiality / concreteness is something I've not encountered with danish before, and have seen no rule regarding it in any book. Perhaps there is no conflict if one supposes that everything a sentence may possibly refer to is either en ting (a thing, which incidentally has common gender) or et begreb or infald (a concept, idea, which incidentally has neuter gender, though we may just as well have used "en tanke"). It would be strange but conceivable that the danish speaker always has these words in mind when classifying grammatically, so that s/he automatically associates the gender of a thing as common, and an idea as neuter, though technically many thing-words are also neuter and many idea-words are also common (as evidenced above by the idea-word sætning). | |
| Freja | Wednesday 15th of June 2005 01:50:48 PM |
| - [quote]Denne er en flot sætning.
[i][b]Dette[/b] er en flot sætning[/i] You're talking about something abstract, so you must use "dette" I trust your knowledge of danish, but sætning is fælleskøn. The sentence is referring to itself, and so it would according to the rules be "denne". Since it sounds strange to you there must be another rule at work here, creating a further division between the deixic pronoun "this" and the sentence. For instance if I simply switched the word order, it would read "Denne sætning er flot". Dette obviously would not work here. It must be therefore a different usage for which I cannot find a rule.[/quote] I know "sætning" is common. According to the rules it must be "dette" and can't be "denne". Please look at the sentence again. If you say [i]Dette er en flot sætning[/i] - "en flot sætning" is not referring to anything. It simply tells you what "dette" is, because "dette" is subject, and since you're talking about something abstract you have to use "dette". [i]Denne sætning er flot[/i] - Here "denne sætning" is subject and you have to use, like you say, "denne" because "sætning" is common. I can't really come up with any rules at the moment. To me this is just the way it is. I'll look for some | |
| Freja | Wednesday 15th of June 2005 09:37:28 PM |
| - Hahahaha! Forget all I said! Smarty smarty me just realized you of course speak standard Danish! You can use "denne"! :D Somehow I was thinking dialect | |
| Thursday 16th of June 2005 11:32:04 AM | |
| - thanks anyway! :) i think it is great to know how a danish person thinks about h/er own language, naturally.
The new word is still: forbindelse (connection, relation, context) [quote][i]Originally posted by Freja[/i] Hahahaha! Forget all I said! Smarty smarty me just realized you of course speak standard Danish! You can use "denne"! :D Somehow I was thinking dialect [/quote] | |
| Freja | Thursday 16th of June 2005 08:11:57 PM |
| - Hehe, you're welcome :) Well, sometimes I think too much about standard Danish. Trying to keep my dialect alive, but that means I sometimes use rules that differ from standard :)
forbindelse (connection, relation, context) | |
| me_eraser | Saturday 18th of June 2005 02:30:54 AM |
| - [i]Jeg kan ikke gør en forbindelse med bogen.[/i]
I can't make a connection with the book. Det næste ord er-> mærkelig(strange) | |
| Freja | Saturday 18th of June 2005 03:28:26 PM |
| - Jeg kan ikke gør en forbindelse med bogen
[i]Jeg kan ikke [b]lave[/b] en forbindelse [b]til*[/b] bogen[/i] *It sounds wrong saying "med" here Det næste ord er-> mærkelig(strange) | |
| Ulven | Wednesday 22nd of June 2005 12:21:00 AM |
| - Ser du den mærkelige man, som står derhen? Jeg stoler på ham slet ikke.
-[i]See that man standing over there? I don't trust him at all.[/i] det nye ord er> [b]disse[/b] (these) Does Danish use [i]det her[/i], [i]det der[/i] and [i]de her/der[/i] for [i]this[/i], [i]that[/i] and [i]these/those[/i] too? Or maybe I'm just getting that from Swedish :S. | |
| Freja | Wednesday 22nd of June 2005 08:38:43 PM |
| - Ser du den mærkelige man, som står derhen? Jeg stoler på ham slet ikke.
[i][b]Kan[/b] du [b]se[/b] den mærkelige man[u]d[/u], som står derhen[b]ne[/b]? Jeg stoler [b]overhovedet[/b] ikke på ham[/i] [quote]Does Danish use [i]det her[/i], [i]det der[/i] and [i]de her/der[/i] for [i]this[/i], [i]that[/i] and [i]these/those[/i] too?[/quote] Well, I'll just mention all the demonstrative pronouns Danish has: [b]den, det, de[/b] [b]denne, dette, disse[/b] [i]hin, hint, hine*[/i] [b]selv[/b] [b]begge[/b] *[i]Hin, hint, hine[/i] are not really used anymore - only by me :p. They are the "real" words for "den dér, det dér, de dér". When spoken most say "den dér/her, det dér/her, de dér/her" instead of "denne, dette, disse" and "hin, hint, hine". [i]den her - denne - this den dér - hin - that det her - dette - this det dér - hint - that de her - disse - these de dér - hine - those[/i] det nye ord er> [b]disse[/b] (these) | |
| Ulven | Saturday 02nd of July 2005 05:00:01 PM |
| - Hvad hedder disse ting? De smager så dejlige.
-[i]What are these things? They taste so nice.[/i] *Was it neccessary to use plural agreement for 'dejlig' (dejlige)? Det næste ord er>[b]at lukke[/b] (to close) | |
| Psyche | Saturday 02nd of July 2005 05:04:43 PM |
| - Du må huske at lukke døren når du går! (You must remember to close the door when you leave)
At more sig (to have fun) I was about to translate "at more sig" with "to have fun with oneself"...but I think that would give the wrong impression :p | |
| Freja | Monday 04th of July 2005 07:47:25 PM |
| - [quote]*Was it neccessary to use plural agreement for 'dejlig' (dejlige)?[/quote]
You can't even say "neccessary" because you can't use plural like that ;) | |
| Freja | Monday 04th of July 2005 07:50:55 PM |
| - [quote]
I was about to translate "at more sig" with "to have fun with oneself"...but I think that would give the wrong impression :p[/quote] hehe, I bet it would :p but you shouldn't translate "sig" in this case. It only shows that the Danish verb is reflexive, but when you translate it into English it's not | |
| Ulven | Saturday 09th of July 2005 12:51:01 PM |
| - Børnene morede dem selv al dag med deres nye legetøg.
[i]- The children amused themselves all day with their new toys.[/i] Unless I had to use... -"Børnene morede selv..." or -"Børnene morede sig...". Are any of the three ways correct? I'm also unsure of my usage of [i]al[/i] instead of [i]hel[/i]. So, why not put the burden onto the next person...:D næste ord> [b]hel/hele[/b] (whole) | |
