Swedish färst

[jal]

My sister, who teaches Swedish, told me the other day that Swedish få "few" has a comparative färre "less", but its regular superlative färst "least" is archaic. So my question (that she couldn't answer, but hopefully you native Swedes can) is what's the regular way to say "least" in Swedish? I find it hard to believe that (as she claimed) it's a "language hole" in Swedish, while it can so easily be created by regular processes (and still exists in the language, albeit little used).


JAL

[paman]

I think "minst" covers both "least" and "fewest". There are, from what I've heard, languages that conflate "many" and "much" and also "few" and "little". I think "minst" is the superlative of both "few" and "little". Google Translate translates "fewest dogs" as "minst antal hundar", and as a native speaker I confirm, but I think "minst hundar" is used more often than "minst antal hundar".

Isn't it "little" - "less" - "least" vs. "few" - "fewer" - "fewest" in English? Do you use "least" for both, like Swedish "minst"?

("färre" means "fewer", not "less")

[vtardif]

Isn't it "little" - "less" - "least" vs. "few" - "fewer" - "fewest" in English? Do you use "least" for both, like Swedish "minst"?

"Fewer" and "fewest" are distinctly out of common use but well-understood, being conflated with "less" and "least". I use the latter almost exclusively, even in formal contexts, unless I'm being very careful with my speech. My father claims to use "fewer" and "fewest" properly and corrects people when they don't, but he probably uses "less" or "least" instead easily half the time. He's also the kind of person who insists on preserving the who/whom distinction.

[paman]

få hundar "few dogs" - färre hundar "less (fewer) dogs" - minst (minst antal) hundar "least (fewest) dogs"
lite vatten "little water" - mindre vatten "less water" - minst vatten "least water"
små hundar "small dogs" - mindre hundar "smaller dogs" - minst hundar "smallest dogs"
de små hundarna "the little dogs" - de mindre hundarna "the smaller dogs" - de minsta hundarna "the smallest dogs"

[Qwynegold]

Google Translate translates "fewest dogs" as "minst antal hundar", and as a native speaker I confirm, but I think "minst hundar" is used more often than "minst antal hundar".

No. This means "smallest dogs" to me.

[jal]

Thanks all. Dutch is one of these languages that doesn't distinguish between many/much and few/little, so that's why I confused "few(er)" with "little/less".


JAL

[Valdeut]

It's worth pointing out that färst is not actually a regular superlative.

Swedish has two synthetic patterns of comparative formation: –re, –st (often with umlaut) and –are, –ast. The are/ast-pattern is more common and it’s the only one that’s productive.¹
låg, läg–re, läg–st ('low’)
stor, stör–re, stör–st (’big’)
(dålig), vär–re, vär–st ('bad, worse, worst’)
våt, våt–are, våt–ast (’wet’)
grå, grå–are, grå–ast (’grey’)

Note that få, färre, färst does not follow the pattern of –re, –st since it adds an –r in the comparative and superlative that’s not found in the positive. This is different from (dålig,) värre, värst and stor, större störst where the r is part of the stem.² There is one other adjective that works the same way: små, smärre, (smärst).³ I also believe these are the only two Modern Swedish adjectives ending in a vowel that don’t follow the are/ast-pattern (if they can form synthetic comparatives and superlatives).

The adjectives små and få were irregular already in Old Norse. In Old East Norse, the adjectives compare as fā, fǣʀʀi, fǣst and smā, smǣʀʀi, smǣst (these are the strong feminine nom.sg forms for ease of comparison with Modern Swedish). As expected from the positive form, there is no ʀ (> later r) in the superlative. But there is an unexpected extra ʀ in the comparative. This extra ʀ > r resulted from the assimilation of a stem-final consonant sometime during the Proto-Norse period⁴.

If we look at the development of four adjectives from Proto-Germanic to Modern Swedish, the picture may become clearer (Modern Icelandic for comparison):

Strong positive m.nom.sg, f.nom.sg (=n.nom.pl), n.nom.sg; Comparative f.nom.sg; Strong superlative f.nom.sg
Proto-Germanic: *lēgaz, *lēgō, *lēgat; *lēgizį̄; *lēgistō
Pre-Old-Norse: *lāgʀ, *lāgu, *lāgt; *lǣgʀi; *lǣgstu
Old East Norse: lāgʀ, lāg, lāgt; lǣgʀi; lǣgst
Modern Swedish: låg, lågt; lägre; lägst
Icelandic⁵: lágur, lág, lágt; lægri; lægst

Proto-Germanic: *stōraz, *stōrō, *stōrat; *stōrizį̄; *stōristō
Pre-Old-Norse: *stōrʀ, *stōru, *stōrt; *stø̄rʀi; *stø̄rstu
Old East Norse: stōrr, stōr, stōrt; stø̄rri; stø̄rst
Modern Swedish: stor, stort; större; störst
Icelandic: stór, stór, stórt; stærri; stærst

Proto-Germanic: *smēhaz, *smēhō, *smēhat; *smēhizį̄; *smēhistō
Pre-Old-Norse: *smāhʀ, *smāhu, *smāht; *smǣhʀi; *smǣhstu
Old East Norse: smāʀ, smā, smātt; smǣʀʀi; smǣst
Modern Swedish: små (plural only), smått; smärre; (smärst)
Icelandic: smár, smá, smátt; smærri; smæst

Proto-Germanic: *fawaz, *fawō, *fawat; *fawizį̄; *fawistō
Pre-Old-Norse: *fawʀ, *fawu, *fawt; *fawʀi; *fawstu
Old East Norse: fāʀ, fā, fātt; fǣʀʀi; fǣst
Modern Swedish: få (plural only), (fått); färre; (färst)
Icelandic: fár, fá, fátt; færri; fæst

The Icelandic forms developed regularly from Old Norse, but Swedish inserted an r into the superlative as well, in analogy with the comparative and probably in analogy with större, störst and värre, värst. This happened already in the Old Swedish period and the regular development fäst seems to have died out sometime during the Middle Ages, while smäst might have lived on a while longer. The newer forms smärst and färst probably fell out of common use in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, meaning that små and få lack a commonly used superlative degree in Modern Swedish.

But if you were to ask a native Swedish speaker to construct a superlative form of få, I think almost everyone would intuitively come up with the form färst and not fäst (even if they had never heard either form). Although they would probably add that it sounds a bit wrong. I’m not as sure about små, since the form smärre is not as widely used, but I would guess that almost everyone would intuitively prefer smärst over smäst. I guess this means that consistency between the superlative and comparative degrees is more important to Modern Swedish speakers than consistency between the superlative and the positive, or something like that,

Notes
¹ This situation goes back to Proto-Germanic where comparatives were formed in either *–izô (> sw. –re) or *–ōzô (> sv. –are), and superlatives in either *–istaz (> sw. –st) or *–ōstaz (> sw. –ast). Old Dutch, Old English and Old High German seems to also have kept the two patterns separate even if they later fell together.

² Since värre, värst don’t have a cognate positive degree, it it perhaps a bit ambiguous whether the r is part of the stem in Modern Swedish. But historically it is: the Proto-Germanic forms were *wirsizô and *wirsistaz respectively.

³ In Modern Swedish, the paradigms of små and liten (’small’, ’little’) have mostly merged so that liten (+ litet, lille, lilla) is used in the singular of the positive degree, with små being used in the plural. For the comparative and superlative, mindre and minst (+ minste, minsta) are used respectively. This was not always the case, liten (Old East Norse lītill) used to have a full positive paradigm (the comparative and superlative degrees were probably formed with suppletion even in Proto-Germanic) and små (Old East Norse smāʀ) used to have a full paradigm in all three degrees. The strong positive n.sg smått may still be used in Modern Swedish, at least as an adverb. The comparative smärre also has some uses but the superlative smärst is probably even more uncommon than färst.

⁴ Notice how tt of the strong positive n.nom.sg fātt (Archaic Swedish fått) and smātt (Swedish smått) also reflect this assimilation.

⁵ Note that in Old Icelandic <æ> always represent a long vowel.

[KathTheDragon]

In which case, it probably makes more sense to say that få is the irregular form.

[jal]

It's worth pointing out that färst is not actually a regular superlative.

Thanks, that was an interesting read.


JAL

[Chuma]

I find it hard to believe that (as she claimed) it's a "language hole" in Swedish

I think language holes are really a gradual thing. Much like there are very few "real" synonyms, there are very few (useful) things that you really can't say, but there are some things that don't have a convenient well established term, and this is definitely one of them. In English, the singular/plural distinction of "you" is another such hole; of course it can be expressed, but there's no easy established way.

As stated, minst antal ("smallest number") is the formally correct version, and minst alone happens sometimes when there's no risk of confusion. People also occasionally use färst, and probably think of it as a neologism.

A similar "hole" is the plural of taxi. The formally correct version is taxibilar ("taxi cars"), but people often try other ideas, such as using taxis inspired by English, or taxisar, probably since unstressed -is is common for nouns while unstressed -i isn't.

An even worse case perhaps is the neuter form of rädd ("afraid, scared"), and a few other words, like paranoid. There, people actually do get stuck and can't think of anything to say. The standard dictionary, SAOL, even says "neuter: avoid", as I recall.

[Miekko]

I find it hard to believe that (as she claimed) it's a "language hole" in Swedish

I think language holes are really a gradual thing. Much like there are very few "real" synonyms, there are very few (useful) things that you really can't say, but there are some things that don't have a convenient well established term, and this is definitely one of them. In English, the singular/plural distinction of "you" is another such hole; of course it can be expressed, but there's no easy established way.

As stated, minst antal ("smallest number") is the formally correct version, and minst alone happens sometimes when there's no risk of confusion. People also occasionally use färst, and probably think of it as a neologism.

A similar "hole" is the plural of taxi. The formally correct version is taxibilar ("taxi cars"), but people often try other ideas, such as using taxis inspired by English, or taxisar, probably since unstressed -is is common for nouns while unstressed -i isn't.

An even worse case perhaps is the neuter form of rädd ("afraid, scared"), and a few other words, like paranoid. There, people actually do get stuck and can't think of anything to say. The standard dictionary, SAOL, even says "neuter: avoid", as I recall.

What, no one says taxin in Sweden?

[Dē Graut Bʉr]

I find it hard to believe that (as she claimed) it's a "language hole" in Swedish

I think language holes are really a gradual thing. Much like there are very few "real" synonyms, there are very few (useful) things that you really can't say, but there are some things that don't have a convenient well established term, and this is definitely one of them. In English, the singular/plural distinction of "you" is another such hole; of course it can be expressed, but there's no easy established way.

As stated, minst antal ("smallest number") is the formally correct version, and minst alone happens sometimes when there's no risk of confusion. People also occasionally use färst, and probably think of it as a neologism.

A similar "hole" is the plural of taxi. The formally correct version is taxibilar ("taxi cars"), but people often try other ideas, such as using taxis inspired by English, or taxisar, probably since unstressed -is is common for nouns while unstressed -i isn't.

An even worse case perhaps is the neuter form of rädd ("afraid, scared"), and a few other words, like paranoid. There, people actually do get stuck and can't think of anything to say. The standard dictionary, SAOL, even says "neuter: avoid", as I recall.

What, no one says taxin in Sweden?

That's the definite singular, not the plural.

[Valdeut]

What, no one says taxin in Sweden?

No, I don't think so. I've never encountered it in Sweden (I think) although SAOB actually lists one example of plural taxin from a 1965 Dagens Nyheter.

Generally, common nouns with plurals in –n seem to be a found mostly in Finland (and apparently it was considered non-standard in 1992 at least). In Sweden, only neuter nouns ending in a vowel can form plurals in –n.

http://www.kotus.fi/index.phtml?l=sv&s=1584

What, no one says taxin in Sweden?

That's the definite singular, not the plural.

Some speakers can apparently use taxin as an indefinite plural form, although it sounds wrong to my ears.

[Radagast revived]

In Danish "færrest" also seems to be competing with "mindst". Though I dont think anyone considers the former archaic.