# Norwegian - Bokmål: På, i, til



## Taure

Hei!

As you can see, I'm new here. I started teaching myself Norwegian at the start of this year. My new year's resolution is to be able to read the Norwegian translation of Harry Potter by the end of the year - at the rate I'm currently going, I think I should be able to attempt this towards the end of the summer. Hopefully.

Anyway, I've been having a bit of trouble with the word "på". My book (Teach Yourself Complete Norwegian) defines it as "on/at". However, I've noticed that it also seems to be used a lot where the English "to" would be used, and where the English "in" would be used. And yet Norwegian has the words "til" and "å" for "to" and "i" for "in".

What distinguishes "på" from "til" and "å" and "i"? Is there a firm set of rules/conventions by which one or the other is used? Or is it just preference?

And while we're at it, what's the difference between "til" and "å"?

Thanks in advance for any answers!


----------



## Alxmrphi

I can't help you with the Norwegian, but Icelandic is very much the same, the use of the prepositions *í* and *á* really used to confuse me, because they seemed to not correlate with anything consistently used in English. But it is something you get used to, with certain verb forms I imagine there are associations that make sense.

What I think might be helpful (but I can't confirm it) is to sort of forget matching up those two prepositions with English ones, you will come across so many examples that break the rule the best way to approach it I suggest would be to understand that they cover a _huge_ range of different meanings, and it's all perfectly logical to native speakers. I think if you had some clear solid examples for us all to look at, they can be described rather than generalisations about meanings.

My instant reaction to differences for the word "to", would be that one is a physical movement,* to* (a place), while the other represents more of an indirect object.
If you consider the following usages:


I want tofly *to* Mars.
I gave it *to* her.

To us, we view 'to' as the same word, but they are quite different usages.
It's possible (probable?) that other languages (like Norwegian) use different words for the different types of meaning.


----------



## hanne

Alxmrphi said:


> I want *to *fly to Mars.


I suspect that Alex got the wrong word bolded here, and really meant:
I want to fly *to* Mars.

The first "to" in that sentence is an infinitive marker, not a preposition. The infinitive marker in Norwegian is "å", which isn't a preposition, and should be fairly easy to distinguish from the others (answering your last question about the difference between "til" and "å"). "På", "i" and "to" are all prepositions, and this is where it gets difficult.

[edit]There's also this older thread you might want to look at.[/edit]

(I'm renaming the thread to include "i" and "til" in the title.)


----------



## Alxmrphi

> I suspect that Alex got the wrong word bolded here, and really meant:
> I want to fly *to* Mars.



I originally posted two, then saw I didn't have one about location, but that's what I meant to do with the first one, I bolded the wrong* to*!


----------



## Taure

Thanks for the replies.

For context, here were the two sentences that confused me:

1. Jeg vil gjerne reise til Norge.

2. Jeg vil heller gå på pub med deg.

Both of them are about going to a place so I wasn't sure what the difference could be.

Is it the tense? Is it the combination with gå? Or is it just one of these conventions that can only be learnt by immersion rather than any hard and fast rules?


----------



## sindridah

Alex you sure were correct about *á* and *í*

English language really needs cases

http://www.mennta.net/malfraedihefti/b7_mf_forsetningar_i_a.htm

This might help you a bit, I think this works the same as in Norwegian. It has English explanation as well.


----------



## hanne

Taure said:


> 2. Jeg vil heller gå på pub med deg.


If you want to go to the place where the pub is, go to that general area, then it's til. But usually, you want to go _inside_, and spend some time there. If you think a bit more closely about that sentence, you'll see that it isn't really about "going to" the pub. Going there, without going inside, is really pretty boring, so when you say it in English you actually mean something more than just "to".


----------



## Tjahzi

Actually, I don't think the comparison to Icelandic is very suitable. Icelandic gets by with unusually inconsistent preposition use thanks to having cases (although this, all in all, makes it much more logical). 
Continental Scandinavian however, has irregular preposition use usually just for what would correspond to Icelandic dative (at least Swedish). That means, static being at a place can be expressed with either _i/(p)å/vid_, and there's usually not much logic to it. Moving towards a location is usually _til(l)_ though. In the case of Swedish, expressing movement with a preposition other than _till_ is limited to a rather small amount of set expressions, such as _gå på bio/puben/teater/museum_ and it's also worth noting that the constructions with _på_ denotes _visiting_ said places rather than the actual movement towards them, as such it's perfectly fine to say _Jag går till puben nu_ - _I go to the pub now/I'm off to the pub._ (Additionally, as one can see, these are all locations in the city)_. _I'm not sure to what extent that goes for Norwegian though.


----------



## Spirillist

When you learn any foreign language, you soon discover that many prepositions you'd never thought about before are fairly arbitrary, and determined more by convention than by logic. This is especially true in more abstract or metaphorical contexts. (Why do you go "for" a walk but "on" a trip, for example?) So even though generally speaking "til"="to," "på"="on" (and often "at"), "i"="in," "ved"="by" (in terms of location, not attribution) etc., the range of use of each is not an exact match.

In this particular case, like others have indicated, it's because going to the location is used to represent engaging in the activity associated with that location (this is called metonymy).

"We went to the pub" = we were at the pub, drinking => "vi var på pub"
"I'm going to work" = I'm going to be at work, doing my job => "jeg går på jobben"

One way to tell the difference might be to ask yourself if it would make sense to express it in one word, like "We're going to a club" = "We're going clubbing." The word might not exist ("pubbing"?), but if it would make sense and express the same meaning, you probably want "på." (In the case of travel, the actual "going there" is the dominant aspect, even if you'll probably be doing a bit of "Norwaying," so you say "til.")

Typical examples of places where "going to" them imply doing something there are: work/office, school ("gå på skolen" is to attend school, while "gå til skolen" is to walk to school), university, cinemas, theaters, pubs, clubs, museums, restaurants, etc.


----------



## ermannoitaly

Hi // Hei
Apropos norske preposisjoner som "i, på, til."
Nordmenn kan jo forklare bedre enn meg bruken av 
preposisjonene, men det er vanskelig for mange 
innvandrere,å få bruke den riktige preposisjonen.
Her er noen setninger på norsk med verbet "å gå" som jeg 
vil nevne som (vanskelige og lette, minst for meg)
eksempler: 
å gå i fjerde klasse.
å gå i krigen.
å gå i fjellet.
å gå i gulvet.
men også å gå på gulvet.
-------
å gå til stranda.
å gå på kafé/å gå på kino osv.

å gå til Paris / til London
-----
å gå hjem - her uten preposisjonen -
-----
å gå til fots
å gå til sengs
----------
og med verbet "å være" :
Jeg skal på hytta,som ligger sør for Drammen,i juli -
----------
Naturligvis  er emnet ganske bredt derfor tror jeg at det er nødvendig for  innvandrere å studere grammatikken,å lese bøker,å høre på  radio-programmer og Tv-programmer og forsøke å skrive og uttale noen  (enkle) setninger. 
----------
Jeg håper det kan hjelpe og hvis det er noe galt i teksten
min,vær så snill, korriger.

Mvh


----------



## Ben Jamin

A tricky bit with the 'på' preposition is that there is a tendency in Norwegian to replace other prepositions with 'på'. You may encounter use of 'på' in colloquial speech, blogs, comments on the web, even newspapers, which you won't find in books, especially a little older books.
One example: instead of saying "protestere mot noe" (to protest against something) yoy will often hear "protestere på". In the speech of some people 'på' is used very often there where other people (especially older) would use other prepositions.


----------

