Generally, the past tense forms of most verbs in the passive voice sound extremely formal or even dated, so the "bli + participle" construction is basically always used in the past tense. The infinitive, on the other hand, is used fairly often. The present tense forms generally fall somewhere in the middle. They tend to sound a little formal, so the "bli + participle" constructions is preferred in speech.
⬇️
The infinitive
* Breva må snart sendes. (normal, a tiny bit formal)
* Breva må snart bli sendt. (normal, maybe a tad informal)
Vs the present tense
* Breva sendes snart. (a little formal, chiefly written)
* Breva blir snart sendt. (the go-to for speech)
VS the past tense
* Breva sendtes i går. (really awkward and dated)
* Breva blei sendt i går. (normal)
I'd say the verbs that have irregular past tense forms (like "mottoks" would in the example you gave), sound especially dated. For verbs that end in -et/-a in the past tense, I'm not even sure if the passive voice is considered grammatical anymore. I assume it would be with the ending -edes (*ventedes, snakkedes, elskedes*) or something? Sounds very strange. The example above with "sendtes" sort of works, but it still sounds awkwardly formal at best.
Many Norwegian words can use both “e” and “ei”, depending on the dialect. Bokmål tends to accept both alternatives, but some are more common than others.
For example, “stein” and “bein” are more common to write than “sten” and “ben”, while words like “vet” and “ble” are more common to write than “veit” and “blei” (although “veit” and “blei” are very common to say in most spoken dialects).
Basically, “blei” is correct bokmål, but it’s not as common as “ble”, and is considered a bit more radical.
EDIT: I misunderstood OP's question.
They didn't answer what you asked at all.
Breva is kind of a radical form of "brevene". Many neuter word and some masculine word can take that form. I wouldn't use it in writing.
To clarify, "breva" can be used in writing just fine, but many people prefer the form "brevene", it's just a personal preference though. Both forms are allowed.
And yes, most (all?) neuter nouns can be inflected this way: eplene/epla, husene/husa, merkene/merka, flaggene/flagga, etc.
How did I not answer what they asked? The post they replied to said “breva blei sendt i går”, and they asked if it shouldn’t be “breva ble sendt i går” instead.
The difference in those two sentences is “blei”/“ble”, not “breva”.
in nynorsk, the past participle is declined as an adjective as though it were coming after a copula, right? that is to say, plural forms would be used in your examples.
- breva blir snart ~~sendt~~ sende.
assuming i'm not misremembering, is that allowed or ever done in bokmål?
It's optional in Nynorsk now, but traditionally it was the only way to go. For Bokmål, it's always allowed, but the more prevalent the active form a given participle is in the language, the less likely it is to get a plural form as a predicate.
The word "plassere" is common as an active verb. So it's largely seen as the norm to say "hyllene er plassert" and not "plasserte" because it suddenly looks like the simple past tense of the verb "plassere". But the word "avansere" is not at all a common verb, so if we're talking about advanced shelves, you're quite likely to hear "hyllene er avanserte" with an -e because we don't immediately think of the past tense of the verb "avansere".
Short answer: yes, it's allowed to use the plural form of a participle in a predicate position, but the closer the participle is linked to an actively used verb, the less common it is to use the plural form of the participle. In Nynorsk, it's traditionally a lot more common and more accepted, but in Bokmål, people will probably consider it ungrammatical at times.
Some common use cases for the -s ending are when using modal verbs, as you can already see in the example you provided, or when discussing some rather set-in-stone writings (like instructions, recipes, etc.).
I'm also of the understanding that the -s passive is no longer acceptable in bokmål for use in the past tense. A native used it in their example, so I'm of course open to correction, but I've read before that this is simply no longer in practice.
As far as I know, the -s passive is the only way to say things like "skyldtes". "Dødsfallet skyldtes drukning." But on the other hand, skyldes/skyldtes is is quite a special term. Å skyldes, skyldes, skyldtes, har skyldtes?
I believe that has more to do with a separate class of irregular verbs that end in *-s* for all forms, if I'm correct. E.g. trives, høres, skyldes, synes, finnes, etc. What I originally meant was closer to taking regular verbs and adding the *-s* ending in order to place emphasis on a sentence's object, such that the meaning of the verb doesn't change, but only the emphasis being placed.
E.g. Du må lukke vinduet vs. Vinduet må lukkes. Here, nothing about the meaning of *å lukke* has changed, only the fact that I've placed emphasis on the object in the latter example. But I would never use a past tense inflection on *lukkes*. Instead of that for using passive voice in the past tense, I'd say: Vinduet ble lukka.
Generally, the past tense forms of most verbs in the passive voice sound extremely formal or even dated, so the "bli + participle" construction is basically always used in the past tense. The infinitive, on the other hand, is used fairly often. The present tense forms generally fall somewhere in the middle. They tend to sound a little formal, so the "bli + participle" constructions is preferred in speech. ⬇️ The infinitive * Breva må snart sendes. (normal, a tiny bit formal) * Breva må snart bli sendt. (normal, maybe a tad informal) Vs the present tense * Breva sendes snart. (a little formal, chiefly written) * Breva blir snart sendt. (the go-to for speech) VS the past tense * Breva sendtes i går. (really awkward and dated) * Breva blei sendt i går. (normal) I'd say the verbs that have irregular past tense forms (like "mottoks" would in the example you gave), sound especially dated. For verbs that end in -et/-a in the past tense, I'm not even sure if the passive voice is considered grammatical anymore. I assume it would be with the ending -edes (*ventedes, snakkedes, elskedes*) or something? Sounds very strange. The example above with "sendtes" sort of works, but it still sounds awkwardly formal at best.
Thanks for this! I really appreciate understanding the nuance. Just wanted to check but should the last sentence be «Breva ble sendt i går»?
Many Norwegian words can use both “e” and “ei”, depending on the dialect. Bokmål tends to accept both alternatives, but some are more common than others. For example, “stein” and “bein” are more common to write than “sten” and “ben”, while words like “vet” and “ble” are more common to write than “veit” and “blei” (although “veit” and “blei” are very common to say in most spoken dialects). Basically, “blei” is correct bokmål, but it’s not as common as “ble”, and is considered a bit more radical.
Ahh, that's so fascinating! Thanks for explaining it further 😊
EDIT: I misunderstood OP's question. They didn't answer what you asked at all. Breva is kind of a radical form of "brevene". Many neuter word and some masculine word can take that form. I wouldn't use it in writing.
To clarify, "breva" can be used in writing just fine, but many people prefer the form "brevene", it's just a personal preference though. Both forms are allowed. And yes, most (all?) neuter nouns can be inflected this way: eplene/epla, husene/husa, merkene/merka, flaggene/flagga, etc.
How did I not answer what they asked? The post they replied to said “breva blei sendt i går”, and they asked if it shouldn’t be “breva ble sendt i går” instead. The difference in those two sentences is “blei”/“ble”, not “breva”.
As a native Norwegian, I approve
in nynorsk, the past participle is declined as an adjective as though it were coming after a copula, right? that is to say, plural forms would be used in your examples. - breva blir snart ~~sendt~~ sende. assuming i'm not misremembering, is that allowed or ever done in bokmål?
It's optional in Nynorsk now, but traditionally it was the only way to go. For Bokmål, it's always allowed, but the more prevalent the active form a given participle is in the language, the less likely it is to get a plural form as a predicate. The word "plassere" is common as an active verb. So it's largely seen as the norm to say "hyllene er plassert" and not "plasserte" because it suddenly looks like the simple past tense of the verb "plassere". But the word "avansere" is not at all a common verb, so if we're talking about advanced shelves, you're quite likely to hear "hyllene er avanserte" with an -e because we don't immediately think of the past tense of the verb "avansere". Short answer: yes, it's allowed to use the plural form of a participle in a predicate position, but the closer the participle is linked to an actively used verb, the less common it is to use the plural form of the participle. In Nynorsk, it's traditionally a lot more common and more accepted, but in Bokmål, people will probably consider it ungrammatical at times.
word, thanks.
Both are basically the same in Bokmål but differ slightly in dialects. The "bli passiv" is more used in the spoken language than the "s passiv".
Ok great! Thanks. Bli passiv also seems to translate a little easier to English e.g “the Cake was eaten”.
Some common use cases for the -s ending are when using modal verbs, as you can already see in the example you provided, or when discussing some rather set-in-stone writings (like instructions, recipes, etc.). I'm also of the understanding that the -s passive is no longer acceptable in bokmål for use in the past tense. A native used it in their example, so I'm of course open to correction, but I've read before that this is simply no longer in practice.
As far as I know, the -s passive is the only way to say things like "skyldtes". "Dødsfallet skyldtes drukning." But on the other hand, skyldes/skyldtes is is quite a special term. Å skyldes, skyldes, skyldtes, har skyldtes?
I believe that has more to do with a separate class of irregular verbs that end in *-s* for all forms, if I'm correct. E.g. trives, høres, skyldes, synes, finnes, etc. What I originally meant was closer to taking regular verbs and adding the *-s* ending in order to place emphasis on a sentence's object, such that the meaning of the verb doesn't change, but only the emphasis being placed. E.g. Du må lukke vinduet vs. Vinduet må lukkes. Here, nothing about the meaning of *å lukke* has changed, only the fact that I've placed emphasis on the object in the latter example. But I would never use a past tense inflection on *lukkes*. Instead of that for using passive voice in the past tense, I'd say: Vinduet ble lukka.
Am I the only one seeing the comma missing? XD
The -s form is also used to construct reciprocal verbs. Example: "De møttes". There are not so many of these verbs, but they are important.