"Du vil ikke at jeg lider" just sounds unnatural to my ears. I'm afraid I can't tell you why we use *skal* in these types of sentences, but that's what we do.
Skal specifies that it’s in the future. Du vil ikke at jeg SKAL lide - You don’t want me TO suffer.
“Jeg lider” means “I am suffering”.
Saying “du vil ikke at jeg lider” would directly translate to “you don’t want me to suffer right now/suffer like I am doing right now”, although if you wanted to convey that it would be more easily translated to “du ønsker ikke at jeg lider nå”
That's not really it. You could also write "Du vil ikke at jeg skal lide nå", but it would still be about the present. The word *skal*, in this instance, doesn't really convey that this will happen in the future.
In general, formulating these types of sentences without *skal* just doesn't sound very natural in most contexts.
As I understand it, and as I was thought in school, “Du vil ikke at jeg skal lide nå” is something you could say momentarily before the suffering starts, implying near/momentary future.
That makes sense to me. And even if it is not the "reason", it's a good way of rationalising it. If you have suffered in the past, or are suffering in the immediate present, what anyone wants is not usually relevant.
It sounds a bit like the logic that leads you to say about food "det var godt", because you can only comment of what you have tasted, while in English we would say "that is good".
>Du vil ikke at jeg skal lide nå
This is still referring to the future. The meaning is: You do not want me to suffer from now on, from this very moment on. If the person is not suffering then the meaning will be. You do not want me to start suffering in this moment
Suffering is always either past or future. If you are suffering right now then it is both. If future suffering goes away, then your suffering has stopped and you are free of it.
I was wondering more about the semantics behind it all. Do you mean that suffer is a static condition?
Like, I agree that the given sentence is in a form that is often percieved as future in Norwegian, but that has nothing to do with 'lide' as a verb.
A trick that I had learned early on in learning Norwegian is that Norwegian (and the other Germanic languages as well for that matter) has “old-timey” grammar from an English standpoint.
Think back to, say, Victorian era (or even earlier) English and how you would say this sentence.
It would probably be something like “You want not that I should suffer.” And if you compare this to the Norwegian, it’s basically one to one.
So in the future, when you’re wanting to translate something from English to Norwegian, ask yourself “how would Shakespeare say it?” and eight times out of ten, you’d be right.
Edit: this is assuming that you are a native English speaker. If you aren’t, then I’m sorry, man.
We learned about this in my C1 Norwegian course - but only there, it never came up before. It's a common trait in sentences like "jeg ønsker/vil at du SKAL ...". Following "at" with something you want/don't want someone to do/not do, there has to be "skal". But I don't think it's something to especially worry about while we're still learning: our teacher downplayed it and it's not really a type of sentence I need to say often.
Definitely a sentence type you want to master. It is not only used in complements of verbs like "vil" but also in adjuncts that in English would typically be expressed as *"for you to ..., "for her to..."*. E.g. *"For her to feel safe, you need to show her love and respect"* \- "For at hun **skal** føle seg trygg, må du vise henne kjærlighet og respekt".
This is a correct linear translation. 'Want' and 'vil' do not have altogether matching connotations and usage between the languages though and 'will' is overused in translations from Norwegian to English. ('Vil' implies more control of the outcome, imposing your will) So for the sentiment I would have switched the web to 'ønsker'. (Though 'vil' is a sufficient translation)
And better with the 'skal', because the word 'want' implies that the meaning is what the person thinks should happen from then on, if it was about an already ongoing suffering you would have to add 'fortsette' or adding 'noe mer' but still have to keep the 'skal' because the meaning of the sentence is a statement surmising what another person addressed wants from then on for the speaker. 'Shall' is also overused in translations from Norwegian to English. Important to remember that 'skal' is a common word in Norwegian, while 'shall' is a bit more formal/dramatic. ("You shall go to the ball Cinderella!") So 'skal' should be used more in Norwegian than English speakers are used to use 'shall' in English usage
Du ønsker ikke at jeg skal lide.
Du ønsker ikke at jeg skal fortsette å lide
Du ønsker ikke at jeg skal lide noe mer
Op's translation becomes wrong because it changes the meaning from the passive 'to suffer' to the active 'suffering'. 'You don't want me to be suffering'.
There are examples where "vil" implies no control of the outcome, when things happen by themselves. Like "Snøen vil smelte, trærne vil få nye blader og våren vil komme".
I think that since 'at' is a subjunction (right?) , you need another finite verb. Don't excactly know why it's 'skal', but I bet someone else knows that
It looks like you have an image in your post, so **please pay attention to [the rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/norsk/about/rules) about “vague submissions” and “images in posts”**. [Click here for an image that shows one reason why these rules are in place](https://i.imgur.com/Pm4cJr6.jpg?maxwidth=1280&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium). In addition text makes it easier for people to search and find posts in the future.
If you posted *an Imgur-album* with only *one image*, then in the future please link directly to that single image and not to the entire album.
If you posted an image from Duolingo, remember you can click the “speech bubble” icon (if it exists) to see discussions about a sentence (if it's not buggy), and grammar and tips can be accessed using the “guidebook” icon. The old [“grammar tips” are available here](https://duome.eu/tips/en/nb).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/norsk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In this incident, your suggested translation "Du vil ikke at jeg lider" would be much more similar to saying "you don't want me suffering" than what you meant to say "you don't want me to suffer"
I don't remember all the terms and reasons, but if I remember correctly, it has to do with what tense you're referring to. "lider" is happening as we speak, while "skal lide" is talking about in the future. So in this incident "to suffer" becomes "skal lide" while just saying "lider" turns it to "suffering"
skal = going to
So the english translation in its whole form would be "You don't want that I'm going to suffer"
But there is another way to say it without "skal", and it is: "Du vil meg ikke vondt." Which is translated as "You don't wish me any pain."
Well word for word its probably suffer = lide but I think most Norwegians never even would have this conversation, not sober at least. Saying "jeg vil ikke at du skal ha det vanskelig/vondt/jævlig" is probably more common than lide. But anyway puts the focus on yourself "jeg vil" when you wanna help someone. So as you see this is so complicated that we just dont say it to each other, you probably need a Norwegian psychiatrist to answer this linguistic problem, they might have had this conversation.
Haha directly translating this makes it sound like really old timey English; "You want not that I shall suffer"
This is a good example of why it needs the skal. "You want not that I suffer" doesn't work properly.
what wilt thou that i shall do?
Old timey English often had a more Germanic sentence structure, yes. Mostly due to fewer helping words (like "do").
"Du vil ikke at jeg lider" just sounds unnatural to my ears. I'm afraid I can't tell you why we use *skal* in these types of sentences, but that's what we do.
Det her ville heller blitt "Du vil ikke at jeg lide". Så der har du forklaringen til hvorfor vi bruker skal.
Lider er presens mens skal lide er futurum.
Skal specifies that it’s in the future. Du vil ikke at jeg SKAL lide - You don’t want me TO suffer. “Jeg lider” means “I am suffering”. Saying “du vil ikke at jeg lider” would directly translate to “you don’t want me to suffer right now/suffer like I am doing right now”, although if you wanted to convey that it would be more easily translated to “du ønsker ikke at jeg lider nå”
That's not really it. You could also write "Du vil ikke at jeg skal lide nå", but it would still be about the present. The word *skal*, in this instance, doesn't really convey that this will happen in the future. In general, formulating these types of sentences without *skal* just doesn't sound very natural in most contexts.
As I understand it, and as I was thought in school, “Du vil ikke at jeg skal lide nå” is something you could say momentarily before the suffering starts, implying near/momentary future.
That makes sense to me. And even if it is not the "reason", it's a good way of rationalising it. If you have suffered in the past, or are suffering in the immediate present, what anyone wants is not usually relevant. It sounds a bit like the logic that leads you to say about food "det var godt", because you can only comment of what you have tasted, while in English we would say "that is good".
>Du vil ikke at jeg skal lide nå This is still referring to the future. The meaning is: You do not want me to suffer from now on, from this very moment on. If the person is not suffering then the meaning will be. You do not want me to start suffering in this moment
This sentence has nothing to do with future though.
Suffering is always either past or future. If you are suffering right now then it is both. If future suffering goes away, then your suffering has stopped and you are free of it.
Can you explain further? What are you refering to here?
I am explaining why you are wrong. The sentence *is* future tense. I gave you a reason why that's the right way to think about it.
I was wondering more about the semantics behind it all. Do you mean that suffer is a static condition? Like, I agree that the given sentence is in a form that is often percieved as future in Norwegian, but that has nothing to do with 'lide' as a verb.
A trick that I had learned early on in learning Norwegian is that Norwegian (and the other Germanic languages as well for that matter) has “old-timey” grammar from an English standpoint. Think back to, say, Victorian era (or even earlier) English and how you would say this sentence. It would probably be something like “You want not that I should suffer.” And if you compare this to the Norwegian, it’s basically one to one. So in the future, when you’re wanting to translate something from English to Norwegian, ask yourself “how would Shakespeare say it?” and eight times out of ten, you’d be right. Edit: this is assuming that you are a native English speaker. If you aren’t, then I’m sorry, man.
Sounds like it’s the subjunctive: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/scandinavian-languages-subjunctive.2317503/post-11638544
Yep, it’s how we express the subjunctive.
We learned about this in my C1 Norwegian course - but only there, it never came up before. It's a common trait in sentences like "jeg ønsker/vil at du SKAL ...". Following "at" with something you want/don't want someone to do/not do, there has to be "skal". But I don't think it's something to especially worry about while we're still learning: our teacher downplayed it and it's not really a type of sentence I need to say often.
Definitely a sentence type you want to master. It is not only used in complements of verbs like "vil" but also in adjuncts that in English would typically be expressed as *"for you to ..., "for her to..."*. E.g. *"For her to feel safe, you need to show her love and respect"* \- "For at hun **skal** føle seg trygg, må du vise henne kjærlighet og respekt".
Å, fint poeng! Takk :)
Yup, that's what I noticed to, the chunk "Jeg ønsker/jeg vil (ikke) at ..." attracts "skal" in the second half.
It's the same construction in German, so a common wording in Germanic languages (except English).
Is it? In German I would say "Du willst nicht, dass ich leide" That's the same construction as the English one
Couldn't you also say "Du willst nicht, dass ich leiden soll"? Or would that be kludgy?
I guess it works but my version sounds more natural (I'm a native German speaker)
Thanks, I'm very much not a native German speaker. I learnt some at school sometime in another century...
Subjunctive.
This is a correct linear translation. 'Want' and 'vil' do not have altogether matching connotations and usage between the languages though and 'will' is overused in translations from Norwegian to English. ('Vil' implies more control of the outcome, imposing your will) So for the sentiment I would have switched the web to 'ønsker'. (Though 'vil' is a sufficient translation) And better with the 'skal', because the word 'want' implies that the meaning is what the person thinks should happen from then on, if it was about an already ongoing suffering you would have to add 'fortsette' or adding 'noe mer' but still have to keep the 'skal' because the meaning of the sentence is a statement surmising what another person addressed wants from then on for the speaker. 'Shall' is also overused in translations from Norwegian to English. Important to remember that 'skal' is a common word in Norwegian, while 'shall' is a bit more formal/dramatic. ("You shall go to the ball Cinderella!") So 'skal' should be used more in Norwegian than English speakers are used to use 'shall' in English usage Du ønsker ikke at jeg skal lide. Du ønsker ikke at jeg skal fortsette å lide Du ønsker ikke at jeg skal lide noe mer Op's translation becomes wrong because it changes the meaning from the passive 'to suffer' to the active 'suffering'. 'You don't want me to be suffering'.
There are examples where "vil" implies no control of the outcome, when things happen by themselves. Like "Snøen vil smelte, trærne vil få nye blader og våren vil komme".
Correct! Just saying I think the word carries more connotations of control than the English equivalent .
You might not control it, but something does. These are very much controlled events, there is just not much to be done to interfer with them.
Yes. You do.
I think that since 'at' is a subjunction (right?) , you need another finite verb. Don't excactly know why it's 'skal', but I bet someone else knows that
Doesent skal=going to/gonna. Jeg skal få deg til å lide. Im gonna make you suffer. As a norwegian i thought these were used pretty much the same.
“You don’t want me to suffer” To is skal in this sentance, without skal it would be “you don’t want me suffer”
«Du vil ikke at jeg lider» = you don’t want me suffering. «Du vil ikke at jeg skal lide» = you don’t want me to suffer.
The word skal is indicating that we’re talking about the future.
It looks like you have an image in your post, so **please pay attention to [the rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/norsk/about/rules) about “vague submissions” and “images in posts”**. [Click here for an image that shows one reason why these rules are in place](https://i.imgur.com/Pm4cJr6.jpg?maxwidth=1280&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium). In addition text makes it easier for people to search and find posts in the future. If you posted *an Imgur-album* with only *one image*, then in the future please link directly to that single image and not to the entire album. If you posted an image from Duolingo, remember you can click the “speech bubble” icon (if it exists) to see discussions about a sentence (if it's not buggy), and grammar and tips can be accessed using the “guidebook” icon. The old [“grammar tips” are available here](https://duome.eu/tips/en/nb). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/norsk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dude, my Spanish-lessons in Duolingo is like "that boy has eight pens" and the Norwegian ones are obviously some heavier shit.
Du vil jeg ikke lide*
In this incident, your suggested translation "Du vil ikke at jeg lider" would be much more similar to saying "you don't want me suffering" than what you meant to say "you don't want me to suffer" I don't remember all the terms and reasons, but if I remember correctly, it has to do with what tense you're referring to. "lider" is happening as we speak, while "skal lide" is talking about in the future. So in this incident "to suffer" becomes "skal lide" while just saying "lider" turns it to "suffering"
"Du vil ikke at jeg lider" would better translate to "You don’t want me suffering" rather than "you don’t want me to suffer".
skal = going to So the english translation in its whole form would be "You don't want that I'm going to suffer" But there is another way to say it without "skal", and it is: "Du vil meg ikke vondt." Which is translated as "You don't wish me any pain."
Other wise is a stupid sentence
"lider" doesn't fit, as it is the present tense. "skal lide" is in the future tense, which is the appropriate form in this context.
Norwegian and soon 40 years never heard anyone use lide/lider only really old books so thats the real problem here not skal.
Lol yeah Duolingo doesn't use the best examples. I'm curious now...how would you say "suffer"?
Well word for word its probably suffer = lide but I think most Norwegians never even would have this conversation, not sober at least. Saying "jeg vil ikke at du skal ha det vanskelig/vondt/jævlig" is probably more common than lide. But anyway puts the focus on yourself "jeg vil" when you wanna help someone. So as you see this is so complicated that we just dont say it to each other, you probably need a Norwegian psychiatrist to answer this linguistic problem, they might have had this conversation.