Learn Hardcore Icelandic: Við göngum í skóginn án þess að taka símana með. - We walk into the forest without taking the phones with us.

Infinitive: að ganga – to walk
Present tense:
- ég geng – I walk
- þú gengur – you (sg.) walk
- hann / hún / það gengur – he / she / it walks
- við göngum – we walk
- þið gangið – you (pl.) walk
- þeir / þær / þau ganga – they walk

So Við göngum = “We walk” or “We are walking” (Icelandic present covers both simple and progressive).

Why is it í skóginn and not something like í skógur or í skógi?

Several things are going on in í skóginn:

Base noun and case
- Dictionary form: skógur – “forest” (nominative singular)
- Here we have skóginn, which is accusative singular definite: “the forest”.
Preposition í
- motion vs. location
- í can take accusative or dative, depending on meaning:
  - Motion into something → accusative
    - Við göngum í skóginn. – We walk into the forest.
  - Location in something → dative
    - Við göngum í skóginum. – We are walking in the forest.
Definite article as an ending
- Icelandic attaches “the” to the end of nouns:
  - skógur (a forest) → skóginn (the forest, accusative sg.)

So í skóginn literally means “into the forest”.

Where is the word “the” in skóginn and símana? Why isn’t it separate like in English?

Icelandic usually marks definiteness with an ending, not a separate word:

Masculine singular (accusative):
- skógur – forest
- skóginn – the forest
Masculine plural (accusative):
- sími – a phone (dictionary form, singular)
- símar – phones (nominative plural)
- síma – phones (accusative plural, indefinite)
- símana – the phones (accusative plural, definite)

So:

í skóginn = into the forest
taka símana = take the phones

The “the” part is built into -inn / -an / -ið / -nir / -na, etc., rather than a separate word.

What exactly does án þess að mean, and why is þess there?

Án þess að is a fixed expression meaning “without (doing something)”.

án = without
þess = genitive of það (“it/that”); here it functions as a dummy pronoun required by án
að = the particle used before infinitive verbs, similar to “to” in English

Literally, án þess að is like “without that (to) …”, but idiomatically it works as:

án þess að + infinitive/verb phrase = “without doing X”

Examples:

Hann fór án þess að kveðja. – He left without saying goodbye.
Við göngum í skóginn án þess að taka símana með. – We walk into the forest without taking the phones with (us).

So þess is there because án normally takes a genitive object, and this construction has fossilized into the conjunction-like phrase án þess að.

Why is it taka and not tökum (or some other form) after að?

Taka is the infinitive form of the verb “to take”.

Infinitive: að taka – to take
Present:
- ég tek – I take
- við tökum – we take

After að in this kind of construction, Icelandic uses the infinitive:

án þess að taka símana með – without taking the phones with (us)

When the subject is the same in both parts (here, “we”), the infinitive is the normal pattern.

If the subject were different, you’d usually see a full clause with a finite verb, often in the subjunctive:

Hann fór án þess að hún tæki símann með.
“He left without her taking the phone with her.”

In our sentence, since “we” are doing both the walking and the (not) taking, taka (infinitive) is correct.

What form is símana, and what is the basic word for “phone”?

The basic dictionary form is:

sími – a phone (masculine noun)

The form in the sentence, símana, is:

accusative plural definite: “the phones”

Rough breakdown:

singular: sími – phone
plural accusative indefinite: síma – phones
plural accusative definite: símana – the phones

So taka símana = “take the phones”.

Why isn’t there a word for “our” in “our phones”? How would you say it explicitly?

In Icelandic, when it’s obvious that the thing belongs to the subject, the possessive pronoun is often left out:

Við göngum í skóginn án þess að taka símana með.
Literally: “…without taking the phones with.”
Naturally understood as: “…without taking our phones with us.”

If you want to be explicit:

án þess að taka símana okkar með
= “without taking our phones with (us)”

Here okkar = “our” (or “of us”). The shorter version without okkar is very normal when the ownership is clear from context.

Why is með at the very end of the sentence? Could it go somewhere else?

Með usually means “with”, but in combinations like taka e-ð með it functions a bit like a verb particle (similar to English “take something along / take something with you”).

Common patterns:

taka símann með – take the phone with (you)
taka barnið með – take the child along

So Icelandic often splits the verb and með, putting með after the object, especially in speech and everyday writing.

Other possible versions:

án þess að taka símana með okkur – without taking the phones with us
án þess að taka með okkur símana – also possible, but sounds more marked/less neutral

The sentence-final með is very natural here and emphasizes the idea of “along / with (us)”.

Why is it í skóginn with accusative, and how would you say “in the forest” instead of “into the forest”?

Because í governs accusative when it expresses movement into something, and dative when it expresses location:

Motion (accusative):
- Við göngum í skóginn. – We walk into the forest.
Location (dative):
- Við göngum í skóginum. – We are walking in the forest.

So to say “in the forest”, you must change skóginn → skóginum (dative singular definite).

Can Icelandic omit the subject “we” like Spanish or Italian, or do you always need við?

Icelandic is not a “drop-subject” language like Spanish or Italian. You normally must include the subject pronoun:

Við göngum í skóginn. – Correct
Göngum í skóginn. – Usually incorrect/odd as a normal sentence (might work only as a command: “Let’s walk into the forest.”)

So in standard usage, you keep við whenever it’s “we” as the subject.

Does Icelandic have a separate continuous form like “we are walking”, or is Við göngum used for that too?

Við göngum can mean both:

“We walk” (habitual)
“We are walking” (right now)

Icelandic present tense covers both simple and continuous aspects.

There is a construction with vera + að + infinitive that can express ongoing action more explicitly:

Við erum að ganga í skóginn.
Literally: “We are to walk into the forest.”
Used more like: “We are (currently) walking into the forest.”

But in many contexts, simple Við göngum í skóginn is perfectly natural for “We are walking into the forest.”

Could you use a different verb instead of ganga, like fara or labba, and what would change?

Yes, but the nuance changes slightly:

Við göngum í skóginn.
We walk into the forest. (Neutral, maybe a bit more formal/standard.)
Við förum í skóginn.
We go into the forest. (Fara is more general “to go”, not specifically on foot.)
Við löbbum í skóginn.
From að labba, a more informal/colloquial word for “walk”; feels more casual, like “We’re walking into the forest (just strolling).”

All three are possible; ganga is the standard neutral verb in the original sentence.