Breakdown of Ikke bare jeg, men også Anna er ansvarlig for maten.
jeg
I
være
to be
Anna
Anna
maten
the food
for
for
ikke bare
not only
men også
but also
ansvarlig
responsible
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Norwegian grammar and vocabulary.
Questions & Answers about Ikke bare jeg, men også Anna er ansvarlig for maten.
Why is jeg (and not meg) used here?
Because it’s part of the subject. Standard Norwegian uses the subject form jeg in subject position. You’ll hear colloquial meg og Anna as a subject in speech, but in writing and careful speech use jeg (og Anna).
Does the verb have to come after that long initial phrase? What about the V2 rule?
Yes. Norwegian main clauses are V2: the finite verb comes in second position. The whole focus phrase Ikke bare jeg, men også Anna occupies the first position, so the verb er comes next: Ikke bare jeg, men også Anna er …
Should it be plural ansvarlige instead of singular ansvarlig?
Safest in writing: use the plural predicate with two subjects — er ansvarlige. With the correlative ikke bare …, men også …, many speakers also accept singular agreement with the nearest element, so er ansvarlig is heard and often written. If you want a rock‑solid choice, use the plural:
- Ikke bare jeg, men også Anna er ansvarlige for maten. Note: With både … og …, plural is required: Både jeg og Anna er ansvarlige.
Does er change with person or number?
No. er (present of å være) is the same for all persons and numbers: jeg/du/han/hun/vi/dere/de er.
Why is there a comma before men (også)?
In the correlative pattern ikke bare …, men (også) …, a comma is commonly used to mark the contrast and keep the structure clear, especially when the parts are more than single words. You’ll often see: Ikke bare jeg, men også Anna …
Can I say the same thing with både … og …?
Yes. The neutral, non‑contrastive version is: Både jeg og Anna er ansvarlige for maten. Ikke bare …, men også … adds a contrastive, “on top of that” feel.
Where should også go?
Place også immediately before what it adds:
- … men også Anna … (default in this pattern) If you expand the second part to a full clause, you can say:
- … men Anna er også ansvarlig for maten.
Can I drop også and say Ikke bare jeg, men Anna …?
It’s understandable, but the fixed pairing in standard Norwegian is ikke bare …, men også …. Keep også in writing.
Why is it for maten (definite), not just for mat?
Use the definite when referring to specific food (e.g., the meal/food for an event): for maten. Use the bare noun for a general statement: ansvarlig for mat = responsible for food in general.
Is ansvarlig an adjective here? Can I phrase it another way?
Yes, it’s a predicate adjective meaning “responsible.” A common alternative is with the noun ansvar:
- Jeg (og Anna) har ansvar for maten. Both are natural.
Is the word order still okay if I make the second part a full clause?
Yes. For example:
- Ikke bare jeg er ansvarlig for maten; Anna er det også.
- Ikke bare jeg, men også Anna, er ansvarlige for maten. Here det stands in for ansvarlig for maten to avoid repetition.
Could I front ikke bare and invert the subject and verb, like Ikke bare er jeg …?
Yes, that’s another valid structure where ikke bare modifies the whole clause:
- Ikke bare er jeg ansvarlig for maten, men Anna er det også. This uses V2 with inversion (er before jeg) because only ikke bare is fronted, not the entire subject phrase.
Should I say Anna og jeg rather than jeg og Anna?
In neutral style, Norwegian (like English) often puts others before yourself: Anna og jeg. In Ikke bare jeg, men også Anna, the focus is intentionally on jeg first, so that order is fine for the contrastive effect.
What’s the difference between Ikke bare jeg … and Bare ikke jeg …?
- Ikke bare jeg … = not only me (others too).
- Bare ikke jeg … = just not me / anyone but me. They express almost opposite ideas.