# Norwegian:  hører til [separable verb]



## Utopian Universe

I came across these two seemingly conflicting sentences:

1. _Det *hører* fortiden *til*._
2. _Fremtiden *hører* *til* barna.
_​My question is how come in the 1st sentence _til_ is separated and placed all the way at the end, whereas in the 2nd sentence it's placed right after _hører_?


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Utopian Universe said:


> Det *hører* fortiden *til*.



It could be wrong, but I think it's just a different way (or perhaps an older way) of saying: _Det hører til fortiden_. 

_Det hører til fortiden_. = It belongs to the past. 
_Det hører fortiden til_. = It belongs unto the past.

Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## raumar

P2Grafn0l said:


> I think it's just a different way (or perhaps an older way) of saying: _Det hører til fortiden_



That's right. The usual word order is "Det hører til fortiden" or "Det tilhører fortiden". The word order "Det hører fortiden til" looks more old-fashioned, or maybe solemn or literary. It has survived as a set phrase. The meaning of those sentences may be closer to "That's a matter of the past".


----------



## P2Grafn0l

Thanks for your confirmation, Raumar.


----------



## Utopian Universe

raumar said:


> That's right. The usual word order is "Det hører til fortiden" or "Det tilhører fortiden". The word order "Det hører fortiden til" looks more old-fashioned, or maybe solemn or literary. It has survived as a set phrase. The meaning of those sentences may be closer to "That's a matter of the past".



Fair enough  So I take it the _til _then would not (normally) be separated from the main verb and be placed at the very end, more like the construction of separable verbs in, say, German?

And does the position of the verb's prefix affect the idiomaticness of the sentence? i.e. Is _"Det *hører* *til *fortiden" _OR _"Det *tilhører* fortiden" _more idiomatic?

Thanks a lot!


----------



## raumar

Utopian Universe said:


> So I take it the _til _then would not (normally) be separated from the main verb and be placed at the very end, more like the construction of separable verbs in, say, German?



Yes, it would look more German than Norwegian in most sentences. 



Utopian Universe said:


> And does the position of the verb's prefix affect the idiomaticness of the sentence? i.e. Is _"Det *hører* *til *fortiden" _OR _"Det *tilhører* fortiden" _more idiomatic?



That's a good question. I would say that both alternatives work in this specific sentence, but in other contexts you have to use one of them. I have not really thought this through, but I think you only should use "tilhøre" when you say "belong to" in English. For example:
It belongs to me - Den/det tilhører meg.

For "belong" without "to", you should use "høre til". For example: I don't belong here - Jeg hører ikke til her.


----------



## Utopian Universe

raumar said:


> Yes, it would look more German than Norwegian in most sentences.



So given the similarity to German in this context, the first sentence in the original post would then be correct. But in your first post you stated that _Det *hører til *fortiden_ or _Det *tilhører* fortiden _would be the usual word order, yet neither one places _til _at the end like German does


----------



## raumar

I have probably not expressed myself clearly. What I meant to say, was: Yes, you're right about this: 


Utopian Universe said:


> So I take it the _til _then would not (normally) be separated from the main verb and be placed at the very end, more like the construction of separable verbs in, say, German?



In most Norwegian sentences, the "German" word order with the preposition at the end is incorrect. But in a few set phrases, such as the first sentence in post #1, the "German" word order is OK.


----------



## Utopian Universe

raumar said:


> In most Norwegian sentences, the "German" word order with the preposition at the end is incorrect. But in a few set phrases, such as the first sentence in post #1, the "German" word order is OK.



Understood


----------



## PoulBA

tilhøre - bilen tilhører manden - speaks to ownership in a quite literal sense, whereas høre til - vikingetogter hører fortiden til - is more a matter association, like: pertains to the past, or is at thing of the past
hævnen og betalingen hører mig til (bibl.) - to me belongeth vengeance and recompense


----------

