I'm afraid you've run into one of the worst corner cases of the swedish language. The -t at the end of vegansk/veganskt is determined if the noun is determined by "en/ett". en/ett is one of those awful things you can only determine by what feels right, some words can even be used with both. En/ett apelsin for instance (even though to my ears "ett apelsin" sounds wrong.
SAOL (the official lexicon) makes this determination
Oh God, it's getting even more complicated. Patrik was talking about the whole en/ett thing, as being like a/an, except where there's a rule for a/an (it's a if the word after starts with a non-vowel sound, an if it starts with a vowel sound), he said what you said, that you basically just have to memorise which one is used for which word.
as to -sk/-skt, I'll let you and Patrik sort it out. I give up. :)
That second workshop is a verb, not an adjective. It's a doing word, not a description.
Words that affect verbs, such as "I eat quickly", are adverbs. Perhaps veganskt is an adverb? Although, this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vegansk suggests that it's actually the neuter singular positive inflection of the adverb. Yeah, that's beyond me too.
I'm in the US. At least where I've lived (mostly Midwest), it would be "Let's go out for Chinese." "Do you feel like Indian?" "Would you rather order Mexican or Italian?"
"An Italian" or "an Indian" would as far as I can think be exclusive to a person. (So suggesting "going for an Indian" would be a little fraught. 🙂)
Oddly, I'm not sure there's any context where we'd say "a Chinese" without a noun. I think based on books and film that a lifetime ago that might have been a polite term for a Chinese person. But these days it would feel vaguely offensive without including a noun after it.
(Likewise "a Japanese". But "a Korean" would be normal for a person from Korea, so it's not about region or race per se.)
I won't swear there aren't other US regions or dialects where things would be different. But I think I'd be surprised to hear the usage you describe on US TV.
Yeah, so I think this is a difference between British English and American English. Where we would say "going for a Chinese" you would say "going for Chinese". (Although I obviously can't speak for every British person).
I should point out that "a Chinese" is always going to refer to having Chinese food. You would never say that in the context of a person from China.
For reference https://www.swedishfreak.com/swedish-language/learn-for-free/en-and-ett-in-swedish/
I'm afraid you've run into one of the worst corner cases of the swedish language. The -t at the end of vegansk/veganskt is determined if the noun is determined by "en/ett". en/ett is one of those awful things you can only determine by what feels right, some words can even be used with both. En/ett apelsin for instance (even though to my ears "ett apelsin" sounds wrong.
SAOL (the official lexicon) makes this determination
en vegansk + noun
ett veganskt + noun
https://svenska.se/tre/?sok=veganskt&pz=1
Clear as mud, yeah?
Oh God, it's getting even more complicated. Patrik was talking about the whole en/ett thing, as being like a/an, except where there's a rule for a/an (it's a if the word after starts with a non-vowel sound, an if it starts with a vowel sound), he said what you said, that you basically just have to memorise which one is used for which word.
as to -sk/-skt, I'll let you and Patrik sort it out. I give up. :)
That second workshop is a verb, not an adjective. It's a doing word, not a description.
Words that affect verbs, such as "I eat quickly", are adverbs. Perhaps veganskt is an adverb? Although, this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vegansk suggests that it's actually the neuter singular positive inflection of the adverb. Yeah, that's beyond me too.
Sorry, you're right. That's a typo. Let me edit it. Thanks!
"the neuter singular positive inflection of the adverb"
I managed to hang on all the way to the "the". Then the meaning sort of spun away from me. :)
When it comes down to it, English has a disturbingly relaxed grammar compared to many other languages.
This seems pretty common for food: "We're eating Italian." "She's ordering Chinese." "I only eat organic."
Yeah. Maybe. But I can imagine saying, "She's ordering *a* Chinese?" more than "She's ordering Chinese."
Out of curiosity, where are you from? UK, USA, or somewhere else?
Like like if someone in the UK suggests "going for an Indian", they're suggesting going to an Indian restaurant. (See also having a cheeky Nandos).
I'm in the US. At least where I've lived (mostly Midwest), it would be "Let's go out for Chinese." "Do you feel like Indian?" "Would you rather order Mexican or Italian?"
"An Italian" or "an Indian" would as far as I can think be exclusive to a person. (So suggesting "going for an Indian" would be a little fraught. 🙂)
Oddly, I'm not sure there's any context where we'd say "a Chinese" without a noun. I think based on books and film that a lifetime ago that might have been a polite term for a Chinese person. But these days it would feel vaguely offensive without including a noun after it.
(Likewise "a Japanese". But "a Korean" would be normal for a person from Korea, so it's not about region or race per se.)
I won't swear there aren't other US regions or dialects where things would be different. But I think I'd be surprised to hear the usage you describe on US TV.
Yeah, so I think this is a difference between British English and American English. Where we would say "going for a Chinese" you would say "going for Chinese". (Although I obviously can't speak for every British person).
I should point out that "a Chinese" is always going to refer to having Chinese food. You would never say that in the context of a person from China.