# Norwegian: gå på kirken, gå i kirken, gå til kirken



## timtfj

I'm attempting the overdue task of getting my prepositions straightened out. I've got this information from Åse-Berit & Rolf Stranskogen, _Norwegian: an essential grammar_, but I'd like to check that I've understood the finer distinctions correctly.

Here's my understanding:


Hun går *på* kirken: she goes to a church service, or is a churchgoer.
Hun går *i* kirken: she goes to the church building and does something inside.
Hun går *til* kirken: she goes to the physical location of the church.

that is,


you *gå på* an activity
you *gå i* the inside of building
you *gå til* a geographical location.

So you'd *gå på kirken* to attend a service, *gå i kirken* to look for something you'd accidentally left in the building, and *gå til kirken* in order to wait for a bus at the adjacent bus stop. Also if you were *på kirken* you'd be at a service, whereas if you were *i kirken* you'd merely be inside the building.

Have I got these distinctions right? The book's a bit hazy about *gå i* but clear on the other two.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Hi Tim,

Prepositions are always tricky - regardless of language. I had this exact conversation with a couple Norwegians at the Norwegian Center/Church in NYC a while ago, and although we did not quite resolve it, I will do my best:

*Hun går på kirken* sounds odd to me. The image I get in head is someone balancing on the roofridge. However, *hun er på kirken* is perfectly understandable. It means that someone is physically present at the church, but most likely not in terms of attending a religious service. Imagine: *Hun jobber på kirka*. This means that someone has the church building as their workplace, and they may or may not work for the church. Also consider: *"Hvor er du?" "Jeg er på kirka og spiser vafler"*. This identifies a general location.

*Hun går i kirken* is more likely to be associated with attending a religious service. I would say that this is the expression you would use for a churchgoer. On the other hand, *jeg jobber i kirken*, can have two very different meanings. It can either mean you are working inside the church room itself (e.g. painting, tiling etc.), or that you are working for the church organization. The latter can also be expressed: *Jeg jobber i Kirken* - where the capitalized K denotes a particular or implied church ("the Church"). The expression (which is closer to English): *jeg jobber for kirken* is more likely to mean that you are doing work for the church, rather than being an employee.

The difference between *jeg er i kirken* og *jeg er på kirken* has also got to do with the specific location. *På kirken* is more general, whereas most people will identify *i kirken* with being in the nave. Notwithstanding will there probably be a number of personal and dialectal preferences when it comes to usage.

As I mentioned, the use of preposition is idiosyncratic in any language. Consider the distinction between 'in the office' and 'at the office'. Norwegian makes the same distinctions, but uses different words.

Quite as you say, *gå på* is often used about activities (gå på fotball, gå på skole), whereas *gå i* is mostly used in its physical sense, namely 'being inside or inside the boundaries of something' (gå i skogen, gå i fjellet). *Gå til* is predominantly used with its directional properties, but remember that* gå til* in most cases will mean 'walk to', and not 'go to'.


----------



## vestfoldlilja

Gå på kirken sounds very strange to me and not something people would naturally say. 

På: means on top of something or on the surface of something

I: means in; as in inside a place/area or surrounded, in the middle of something 

When you use a preposition to talk about an action you can use the same preposition to describe the result of the action. 

Action: Til stedet/towards: 

Hun går i kirken hver søndag – she goes to/attends church each Sunday

Result: På stedet/in the place:  

Hver søndag er hun i kirken – Each Sunday she is in (the) Church

Action: Til stedet/towards: 

Hun går på kirkekaffe (common tradition after a church service to gather afterwards for coffee, something to nibble on and socialize) annenhver søndag – She goes to/attends _kirkekaffe_ every second Sunday

Result: på stedet/in the place: 

Annenhver søndag er hun på kirkekaffe – Every second Sunday she’s at _kirkekaffe_

When in means inside a place/area it is at times possible to use på to narrow the place down.

Hun har vært i kirken –  she’s been to Church

Hun har vært på gudstjeneste – She been to a Church service

Hun jobber i Kirken (she works within the organization of the church) 

Hun jobber på kirken (she’s physical at the church while at work)

There’s lots of useful things abour prepositions at Språkrådet (In Norwegian): http://www.sprakrad.no/nb-NO/Sprakhjelp/Skriveregler_og_grammatikk/I_eller_paa/


----------



## Ben Jamin

I have observed a trend in the Norwegian language of the preposition "på" replacing all other prepositions one after one. It has become a kind of "universal" preposition that is used often in a case of doubt which preposition should be used (both foreigners and native speakers). An example can be: "protestere på noe" (earlier: "protestere mot noe). So, maybe, "på kirken" in the meaning "i kirken" may nevertheless be quite extensively used.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Hi Ben

I think you are on to something. I am not sure if it is a trend, or just a tendency among certain speakers, but will agree that the use of "på" is on the rise. If you look at Vestfoldlilja's great examples above, there are a couple interesting ones that addresses your observations. I work in the same building as the Norw Seamen's Church in NYC, but technically "jeg jobber ikke i kirken", "jeg jobber ikke for kirken", "jeg jobber på kirken". This use of PÅ is spreading. The staff that actually works FOR and I the church (including the clergy) will also tell you: "Jeg jobber PÅ kirka" and "det er gudstjeneste PÅ kirka". The only two times "I kirken" seems to be used, is when it is referred to as an organization, and for the actual service.


----------



## JohanIII

NorwegianNYC said:


> "Jeg jobber PÅ kirka"


Wouldn't that be a parallell to "jobber på [name of company]", seeing the church as an employer, rather than being a new use?


----------



## vestfoldlilja

I think the reason I find _på_ slightly jarring with the church example is because it feels natural for me to narrow it down further. Like; _på kirketrappa_ – on the church steps, or _brudeskoene hennes sto igjen på kirkegulvet mens hun stakk fra bryllupet_ – her bridal shoes stood left behind on the church floor as she fled her own wedding. 

The majority of people do not have their work place at a church building, so it makes sense that most people would not consider, at first glance at least, that på kirka is correct. It is a narrower definition, as supposed to i Kirka, and therefore it is grammatically correct, but it sounds slighty off because it’s not the most common way to refer to the church building. 

When people marry or baptise their children (or have other ceremonies) in a church however, på is not used. 

It’s: Vi skal gifte oss i kirka/kirken – we’re marrying in the church, and Hun skal døpes i kirka/kirken – she’s being baptized in the church. 

If we choose different examples than the church: 

Hun jobber i politivesenet – she works in the police force

Hun jobber på polistasjonen – she works at the police station

Han jobber i helsevesenet – he works in the health services

Han jobber på sykehuset – he works at the hospital


----------



## timtfj

Thanks for all the clarifications---I can quite see how _gå på kirken_ could sound like going onto the church roof! However, I also think that by choosing _kirke_ as the noun I inadvertently chose a bad example. (A good one for illustrating the huge variety of meanings, but a bad one for answering the question I meant to ask.)

Suppose we change *kirken* to *apoteket*. Would I be right in assuming these meanings?

With movement:



*gå på apoteket:* walk/go to the chemist's shop for some purpose related to their bisiness---e.g. to pick up a prescription
*gå i apoteket:* walk/go to the a location inside the chemist's shop, but not necessarily to buy anything: e.g. _Han er på apoteket, så jeg skal gå i apoteket for å finne ham.
_
*gå til apoteket:* walk/go to the physical location of the chemist's shop, without necessarily going inside---e.g. in order to meet someone there

without movement:


*være på apoteket:* be at the chemist's shop for a purpose related to its business (working there, buying something, etc.)
*være i apoteket:* be physically inside the chemist's shop.

Sorry for not answering everyone in more detail---it's late and I'm tired but I wanted to show some sign that I've not abandoned the replies.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

JohanIII said:


> Wouldn't that be a parallell to "jobber på [name of company]", seeing the church as an employer, rather than being a new use?



Yes, but it seems to indicate that there is a weakening of the institution "the Church" (i kirken) in favor "the church" (på kirken) as an employer.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

timtfj said:


> Suppose we change *kirken* to *apoteket*. Would I be right in assuming these meanings?
> 
> With movement:
> 
> 
> 
> *gå på apoteket:* walk/go to the chemist's shop for some purpose related to their bisiness---e.g. to pick up a prescription
> *gå i apoteket:* walk/go to the a location inside the chemist's shop, but not necessarily to buy anything: e.g. _Han er på apoteket, så jeg skal gå i apoteket for å finne ham.
> _
> *gå til apoteket:* walk/go to the physical location of the chemist's shop, without necessarily going inside---e.g. in order to meet someone there
> 
> without movement:
> 
> 
> *være på apoteket:* be at the chemist's shop for a purpose related to its business (working there, buying something, etc.)
> *være i apoteket:* be physically inside the chemist's shop.





A part of me feels "apoteket" is too precise of a location to apply to all the variables here. But yes, you can "gå på apoteket for å kjøpe medisin", which is close, but not identical to "gå til apoteket for å kjøpe medisin". However, "gå i apoteket" is an extremely limited experience, as it refers to your physical movements within the chemist's. On the other hand, you "er på apoteket". I think very few people would be specific enough to say "jeg er i apoteket" (unless 'apokteket' was important for your specific location)


----------



## NorwegianNYC

vestfoldlilja said:


> I think the reason I find _på_ slightly jarring with the church example is because it feels natural for me to narrow it down further. [...] it’s not the most common way to refer to the church building.
> 
> When people marry or baptise their children (or have other ceremonies) in a church however, på is not used.



I absolutely agree! "På kirka" is a more encompassing term, referring to "kirka" as a sort of multipurpose location. However, "i kirka" (through the examples you use) is limited to the religious functions of the church ("vi giftet oss i kirka" and "hun ble døpt i kirka"). In terms of other activities, I think people are more ambiguous. Such as "vi var på konsert i kirka" vs. "vi var på konsert på kirka". In the former my associations is that this was a religiously themed concert, whereas the latter indicates (to me) that the church building was used as a concert hall.


----------



## Havfruen

NorwegianNYC said:


> [/LIST]
> 
> A part of me feels "apoteket" is too precise of a location to apply to all the variables here. But yes, you can "gå på apoteket for å kjøpe medisin", which is close, but not identical to "gå til apoteket for å kjøpe medisin". However, "gå i apoteket" is an extremely limited experience, as it refers to your physical movements within the chemist's. On the other hand, you "er på apoteket". I think very few people would be specific enough to say "jeg er i apoteket" (unless 'apokteket' was important for your specific location)



What about *være hos apoteket*?


----------



## vestfoldlilja

I think it’s’ safe to say that there will always be exceptions to any rule regarding prepositions, and it’s easier to learn the flow of a language and how the prepositions are used when living in the country and hearing how its used in daily life. I think this tread can go on and on without any of us ever truly explaining the many small nuances between the different prepositions, and why one things works one place and not another. 

The clue is that in some instances either _på_ or _i_ can be used, while other times only one of them will work, and other times again both can be grammatically correct, but one will still sound off/wrong because the language is not used that way. 

Regarding apoteket: 

Jeg skal på apoteket senere – I’m going to the pharmacy later

Jeg gikk rundt i apoteket lenge og lette etter rett plaster – I walked around the pharmacy for a good while looking for the correct band aid. It would not be used to express being in the pharmacy waiting in line for medications or just standing around waiting for someone else. 

Jeg går til apoteket senere i dag og henter medisinene mine – I’m walking to the pharmacy later today to pick up my medications/prescriptions

Jeg skal til apoteket i morgen – I’m going the pharmacy tomorrow





Havfruen said:


> What about *være hos apoteket*?



Hos apoteket would not work. Hos is used for visits; like being over at a friend’s house or a doctor appointment. 

Jeg skal sove over hos Lene – I’m going to a sleep-over at Lene’s

Jeg var hos legen i går – I was with the doctor yesterday (that is to say at a doctor appointment and not a social gathering). I was at the doctor’s yesterday is perhaps better, or I saw my doctor yesterday.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Havfruen said:


> What about *være hos apoteket*?


Hos is in referrence to someONE's place. It is similar to 'chez' in French. This can be either a person's name, a profession that is traditionally associated with a single person (or small group), such as "hos bakeren", and more recently, stores advertise using the more personal *hos* rather than *på* (i.e. "hos Elkjøp").

Etymologically speaking, "chez" is derived from Latin "casa", and "hos" is indeed from the same root as "hus"


----------



## elena 1

Hei hei!

  I have read all you wrote about these two prepositions but i am very beginner and i still cannot clarify the diference.


  I give you two frases  from the book “På vei” (a1-a2):

_Finn er lærer og arbeider *på* en skole. __(Page 38)_
_ (We put  ”på” because of the verb? If  we put here ”jobber”, can we put ”i”?)_

_Unni jobber *i* butikk.__ (Page 23)_

_Grete jobber *i *kantina *på* fabrikken. __(Page 38)_

  Kan vi si: 


_Finn er lærer og arbeider *i *en skole._

_Unni jobber *på* butikk._

_Grete jobber *i* kantina *i* fabrikken.

_




  Takk på forhånd!


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Hi,

No, you cannot. I have used På Vei for a number of years, and I often get this question. Again, prepositions are idiosyncratic in every language, but I will try to explain:

Finn er lærer og arbeider på en skole >> [på = at] He works as a teacher at a school
Finn er lærer og arbeider i en skole >> [i = inside] He is a teacher, but the sentence only says he works INSIDE a school (building)

Unni jobber i butikk >> [i = in]
Unni jobber på butikk >> [på = at]

Both sentences can be used, but if anything, I'd say *på* is more common than *i*in this particular instance. You can work in a store or at a store in English as well.

This one has more options:
1) Grete jobber i kantina på fabrikken
2) Grete jobber i kantina i fabrikken
3) Grete jobber på kantina i fabrikken
4) Grete jobber på kantina på fabrikken

Again, [i = in] and [på = at]. The difference between _på fabrikken_ and _i fabrikken_ is the same as English: at the factory is the factory as a workplace, and in the factory is inside the factory building(-s). Same difference with _kantina_. _På kantina_ is the institution you work for within the factory, whereas _i kantina_ will be a the physical location (inside the room(-s))

Consider English: "I am at the cafeteria" and "I am in the cafeteria". There is a small, and usually not important difference between the two. Since English and Norwegian are so closely related, you will find a lot of parallel usage, even if the actual prepositions are slightly different


----------



## timtfj

Thanks for the factory/canteen/school examples---it helps clarify my original question as well.

The feeling I get is that although *på* is quite hard to define, its uses here are all to do with having more *connection* with the place than simply being there: working there, eating there, buying something there. (_Kirken_ and _apoteket_ were simply the first examples I could think of, but not necessarily the best ones.)

The problem with *på* in particular is that it can be translated by so many different English prepositions---I've learnt it as "on, upon, in, at, to" but it seems to cover plenty of other ideas too (eg _en forskjell på _two things).

To me the meanings I've come across for *på* mostly seem to involve



two things being together
some additional connection between the two things

though there are plenty of exceptions to that.

Seeing the på/i difference as being similar to the at/in one in English is helpful, though it sounds as though the difference might be stronger in Norwegian than in English.


----------

