# Norwegian: When to use 'en' and 'et' in a sentence



## vthebee

Hi

I am learning Norwegian and read that Norwegians don't always include the word for 'a/an' (the indefinitie article) 'en' and 'et' in all their sentences. For example it is grammatically correct to say 'Jeg har bil'.

Sometimes though I notice that 'en' or 'et' are included in sentences.

Is there a special rule which applies as to when to use it and when not to use it?

Thank you for any help.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

The rule is: When the noun explains what the subject IS, WAS or WILL BE, there is no indefinite article (and by extension - you example - when the noun explains what the subject has).

I know - this one isn't easy, but that's how the rule goes...


----------



## StunningNorway

NorwegianNYC said:


> The rule is: When the noun explains what the subject IS, WAS or WILL BE, there is no indefinite article (and by extension - you example - when the noun explains what the subject has).
> *
> Hei Norwegian NYC
> 
> Looking back at some of my Homework, I have written sentences like this example: 'Jeg har en datter.....' From the rule that you have given, should the sentence be written: 'Jeg har datter....', ie leaving out the article?
> 
> Mange takk.*


----------



## NorwegianNYC

No, because the NOUN (datter) does not define/explain the SUBJECT (jeg). A daughter is different from what you are. I will take a chance on your gender (I do not know), but presume you can say: "Jeg er mann". In this case *jeg = mann,* and the noun does indeed define the subject. Likewise, you can say "du er kvinne" because *du = kvinne*. Also, "han var lærer før, men han er ingeniør nå" because *han = lærer (før) = ingeniør (nå)*. In this sentence it all ties in neatly, because both professions goes to define the person "han".

"Har" is a different story. In general it is hard to use "har" without an article, but the sentence "jeg har bil" is different from "jeg har en bil". The latter sentence simply refers to the fact you are in possession of a car. The first one, however, implies an actuality of the mentioned object. Consider: "Vi trenger ikke ta bussen til byen. Jeg har bil". The phrase "jeg har bil" in this case, has a direct impact on the conditions under which the statement was made (hence actuality). On the other hand, "jeg har en bil" is simply stating a fact, and compare this to: "hun har kylling i kjøleskapet", where the chicken in the fridge is brought up only because it pertains to the situation, and "hun har en kylling i kjøleskapet" is sort of doing inventory.

That being said, the same rule applies: NOUN = SUBJECT, so what you are really saying is "vi trenger ikke ta bussen til byen. Jeg = bil". Which is also why your example does not work (jeg = datter is not true). However, consider this sentence: "Jeg har kjæreste". This actually works, because jeg + kjæreste = couple, and by that: jeg = kjæreste. It works better if you specify further: "jeg har kjæreste i Norge". Also, "han har kone og datter i England", because it all ties in to a unit (han + kone + datter; inferred: jeg = kone/datter).

In general - be careful when you skip the article in har-sentences.


----------



## perevoditel

@NYC: Can we ommit indefinite article also when it refers to an object in sentence, ie. "Jeg vil lære meg å kjøre bil"? Or should the article be used like in English, that is "lære a kjøre *en* bil"? Until now I used first form, but you made me confused...


----------



## NorwegianNYC

You are correct - "jeg vil lære meg å kjøre bil". It is not the same rule as in "jeg er lærer", but one somewhat related to the 'har'-rule mentioned above. Do you want to learn how to drive a car in GENERAL (no article) or a PARTICULAR car (with article)?


----------



## Ben Jamin

NorwegianNYC said:


> "Har" is a different story. In general it is hard to use "har" without an article, but the sentence "jeg har bil" is different from "jeg har en bil". The latter sentence simply refers to the fact you are in possession of a car. The first one, however, implies an actuality of the mentioned object. Consider: "Vi trenger ikke ta bussen til byen. Jeg har bil". The phrase "jeg har bil" in this case, has a direct impact on the conditions under which the statement was made (hence actuality). On the other hand, "jeg har en bil" is simply stating a fact, and compare this to: "hun har kylling i kjøleskapet", where the chicken in the fridge is brought up only because it pertains to the situation, and "hun har en kylling i kjøleskapet" is sort of doing inventory.



Your explanation with using the word “actuality” is difficult to understand. Could you explain what you mean by “actuality” here? Is this your own explanation, or have you found it in literature?


----------



## vthebee

Thank you to everyone for your responses and to help me understand this rule.
NorwegianNYC thank you for taking the time to write the long post above, I'm still a little confused in relation to when to use the indefinite article when you also use 'har'. What do you mean when you say the actuality of the mentioned object?
Would it be right to say that the indefinitie article is used almost all the time except when stating what the subject is, was or will be?


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Hi,

The 'har'-rule is a little complicated and indeed confusing. Consider English: "I have good taste in wine". Why is there no article in that sentence? Because it is contextual, it has actuality to the topic. The sentenced would only be used if the topic wine (or related) was not raised or implied. "Jeg har bil" is a related case. It needs to fit in contextually in order to be used - hence actuality to the topic. The sentence "jeg har kjæreste i Norge" would only be 'valid' if it could be paired e.g. "why are you going to Norway?" or "do you have a boy/girlfriend?"

[Ben Jamin: actuality vs potentiality. It has been a long time, but I think it is a dichotomy from Aristotle used in linguistics]

vthebee - an article could be inserted in all cases in 'har'-sentences without changing the basic meaning of the sentence. The reason you hear "jeg har bil" and "jeg har billett til konserten i kveld" it indicates that it is directly linked to the context. There is nothing wrong in saying "jeg har en bil" and "jeg har en billett til konserten i kveld"; however, the sentences can be then construed as slightly more ambiguous: "jeg har en bil (men ikke her)" and "jeg har en billett (til deg) til konserten i kveld."

That being said - if you do not feel you have an intuitive mastering of it, avoid using it.


----------



## vthebee

Hi NorwegianNYC,

Thank you very much for your reply and taking the time to write it. You have helped me a lot in this area!


----------



## StunningNorway

@ Norwegian NYC

*Thank you* for the *examples* that you have been posting. I have been following this thread, to try to clarify some things.


----------



## timtfj

NorwegianNYC---trying to put it in different words because I'm not sure how you're using "actuality"---would it be fair to say that the difference between *Jeg har bil* and *Jeg har en bil *is as follows



*Jeg har bil* is effectively a statement about *me* ("I am a car owner", "I am able to travel without needing public transport", etc.) and it's irrelevant what particular car I'm talking about
*Jeg har en bil* implies that we're talking about a *specific instance* of my car ownership (I have a car, and it's a blue one which I bought three months ago").

Or, taking your wine example, it's like the difference between


*I drink wine:* statement about me and my drinking habits
*I drink some wine:* statement about a particular instance of me picking up a glass and drinking some

---So without the article it's a general statement about *me*, while with the article it's about a specific *instance*?


----------



## hanne

Tim, I didn't really understand the explanation about "actuality" either, but I think your explanations look very good! (And I'd be very surprised if Danish and Norwegian were different in this matter).


----------



## Bobleplast

Yes, Tim, you are right. When you include the article, it's more a general statement. When you skip the article, it's related to a here and now situation. To say "Jeg kjører" og "Jeg har bil" means the same thing, and would be used the way you'd say "I'm driving" in English.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Tim - correct. *Jeg har bil *relates to something that is important in the moment. If you were sitting around with your friends watching tv and someone says "jeg har bil", the context would make this statement strange since it does not pertain to what is going on in the moment. You can say "jeg har en bil" (preferrable if it pertains to the conversation...). However, if someone were to say "jeg skulle ønske vi hadde noe å spise", then the response "jeg har bil" would work, since you were indicating you were able/willing to drive somewhere to pick up something to eat.

Hanne - to make it short: Actuality is if a statement only makes sense if used in a certain setting, usually one that pertains to the moment (such as the "jeg har bil" mentioned above). Potentiality is when a statement _potentially_ makes general sense or can be used outside the moment. And example is "det var godt", which is a topic or incident specific statement. In other words - it does not have potentiality, only actuality.


----------

