# Norwegian: hans vs sin



## 盲人瞎馬

Hello,

I'm fairly sure I understand the difference between hans and sin, but I recently wrote the sentence "Mannen og hunden sin" and I was told it was wrong and that it should be "hans" instead.

Can anyone confirm and tell me why sin isn't correct here?


----------



## Dan2

Whose dog was it?


----------



## 盲人瞎馬

Dan2 said:


> Whose dog was it?



The man's.


----------



## Ben Jamin

According to traditional grammar this sentence is wrong. It should be "hans".But "Mannen gikk med sin hund/hunden sin" is correct.

According to widespread usage it is ... widespread.


----------



## basslop

I Agree with Ben Jamin because if you say "Mannen gikk tur med hunden hans", it is assumed there is an other person, male, in the context which "hans" refers to.
Example: "Mannen fikk vite at naboen var syk og sengeliggende. Da gikk mannen tur med hunden hans."

Hope this clears up for those who still are in doubt.


----------



## myšlenka

Where did the context of walking the dog come from? I can't see any trace of that in OP's question.


----------



## ger4

Is it correct that _sin_ can not be used with subjects?

In a sentence like _mannen og __hunden hans kom gående langs en vei, _for example,  both the man and the dog are the subject. That's why _sin_ can't be used (as far as I understand).

In these two sentences, the man is the subject, the dog isn't:
_Mannen gikk tur med hunden hans
Mannen gikk tur med hunden sin_


----------



## Ben Jamin

myšlenka said:


> Where did the context of walking the dog come from? I can't see any trace of that in OP's question.


Check post #4.


----------



## raumar

That's right, Holger!



Holger2014 said:


> Is it correct that _sin_ can not be used with subjects?
> In a sentence like _mannen og __hunden hans kom gående langs en vei, _for example,  both the man and the dog are the subject. That's why _sin_ can't be used (as far as I understand).



The problem with the OP is that "Mannen og hunden sin" isn't a sentence, it is just a fragment of a sentence. If "Mannen og hunden hans/sin" is the subject, as in Holger's sentence, it must be "_hans_". It does not matter who the owner is. 

If "Mannen og hunden hans/sin" is the object, the ownership becomes relevant. For example:

_Hun så mannen og hunden sin_:  it is her dog. 
_Hun så mannen og hunden hans_: it is the man's dog.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Holger2014 said:


> Is it correct that _sin_ can not be used with subjects?
> 
> In a sentence like _mannen og __hunden hans kom gående langs en vei, _for example,  both the man and the dog are the subject. That's why _sin_ can't be used (as far as I understand).
> 
> In these two sentences, the man is the subject, the dog isn't:
> _Mannen gikk tur med hunden hans
> Mannen gikk tur med hunden sin_


I am not sure if the rule has ever been formulated this way, but the key to the correct (according to traditional grammar) usage is the very definition that says "sin/sitt/sine is a *reflexive *possessive pronun, and relates to an object (the owned thing) and a subject (subject in the sentence must be the owner, or the owner of the object marked with "sin" must be the subject. 
The matter gets more complicated if the object is not a direct object of the subjects actions, and in compound sentences with more than one subject. In this case the opinions vary even among the learned.
Moreover, this traditional usage is getting eroded very quickly, with most speakers of younger generation that use "sin" indiscriminately to any person/thing in the sentence, usually standing closest to the word "sin".

This matter has already been discussed in this Forum. Make a search, and you wil find many threads about it.


----------



## Ornin

But you could still say (as far as I know):
_Mannen sin hund... _*or*
_Hunden sin til mannen..._

But that's just making it too long, so I don't know. But it's useful to know that it _sin/sitt/sine _can be used in such a way.


----------



## myšlenka

Ornin said:


> But you could still say (as far as I know):
> _Mannen sin hund... _*or     *
> _Hunden sin til mannen..._


This use is a bit different from the one that is discussed here.


----------



## Ben Jamin

Ornin said:


> But you could still say (as far as I know):
> _Mannen sin hund... _*or*
> _Hunden sin til mannen..._
> 
> But that's just making it too long, so I don't know. But it's useful to know that it _sin/sitt/sine _can be used in such a way.


But this "sin" is a completely another word and has another meaning and function (part of the so called "garpegenitiv"). This use is the reason of the decay of "sin" as a reflexive pronoun.


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> But this "sin" is a completely another word and has another meaning and function (part of the so called "garpegenitiv"). This use is the reason of the decay of "sin" as a reflexive pronoun.


Do you have a source on this?


----------



## Ben Jamin

myšlenka said:


> Do you have a source on this?


On what in particular? Garpegenitiv?


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> On what in particular? Garpegenitiv?


On this claim:


> This use is the reason of the decay of "sin" as a reflexive pronoun.


----------



## Ben Jamin

myšlenka said:


> On this claim:


No, I didn't find any. It is just a hypothesis.


----------

