# Norwegian: Hun kommer her/hit



## StunningNorway

Hei alle sammen

Hun kommer _her/hit_. What is the difference in usage of these adverbs. They both translate as, 'She comes/is coming _here_.'


Tusen takk.


----------



## hanne

There's some discussion of the same thing in Swedish here (and another link inside that thread). That should give you some background. The meaning should be the same, but it may be more or less common in Norwegian compared to Swedish - I'll leave it for someone else to comment on that (I only know it's a lot less common in Danish than in both Norwegian and Swedish).


----------



## AutumnOwl

StunningNorway said:


> Hun kommer _her/hit_. What is the difference in usage of these adverbs. They both translate as, 'She comes/is coming _here_.'


I don't know if it's similar in Norwegian as in Swedish, but if I was to translate "hun kommer her" into English I would use "here she comes" (for example when answering a telephone call and the caller wanted to speak to someone and I give the telephone to that person), and for "hun kommer hit" it would be "she comes/is coming here", it's more as the person is not in the same place where I am but I see her walking towards me.


----------



## StunningNorway

Takk, Hanne og Autumn Owl

Therefore, in this email.....'Kan du komme _hit _onsdag.12 september'......_hit_ has been used because I have to phsically move (drive) to that person's house/we are in different locations....
Is that how it works?


----------



## Ben Jamin

StunningNorway said:


> Takk, Hanne og Autumn Owl
> 
> Therefore, in this email.....'Kan du komme _hit _onsdag.12 september'......_hit_ has been used because I have to phsically move (drive) to that person's house/we are in different locations....
> Is that how it works?



Theoretically it works like this. In formal language one should use 'hit' for the target of motion. In colloquial Norwegian, however, many people will use 'her' instead of 'hit'.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Well, the simple answer is that HIT implies movement and HER implies location. Norwegian has a double set of adverbial prepositions depending on whether one is motion or at a location (e.g. "ut" and "ute"). English has remnants of the same system in terms of here and hither. Technically, it is incorrect to say 'she is coming here' in English. One can say 'she is here', but the proper way of denoting movement would be 'she is coming hither'


----------



## timtfj

StunningNorway said:


> Hei alle sammen
> 
> Hun kommer _her/hit_. What is the difference in usage of these adverbs. They both translate as, 'She comes/is coming _here_.'
> 
> 
> Tusen takk.


_Her_ is a place and _hit_ is a direction. There are a lot of pairs of adverbs like this: _hjem/hjemme_, _ned/nede_, _inn/inne_, _ut/ute_, _bort/borte_, _opp/oppe_ etc. Mostly one has an _-e_ and the other doesn't, and the one with -e is static ("in a place") while the one without involves movement to the place. 

Really you need to find a list of them and learn them as pairs. Thinking of them as "to" and "at" places might help: e.g. _hit_ = "to this place" and _her_ = "in this place".

_Hun *kommer hit*_*,* with the result that _hun *er her*_. _Han *går* *ut,* og så *er ute.*_


----------



## timtfj

NorwegianNYC said:


> Well, the simple answer is that HIT implies movement and HER implies location. Norwegian has a double set of adverbial prepositions depending on whether one is motion or at a location (e.g. "ut" and "ute"). English has remnants of the same system in terms of here and hither. Technically, it is incorrect to say 'she is coming here' in English. One can say 'she is here', but the proper way of denoting movement would be 'she is coming hither'


That remnant is actually how I remember which way round _hit_ and _her_ go: _hit_ is like a shortened version of _hither_.


----------



## StunningNorway

Hei

Thank you Ben Jamin, Norwegian NYC and timtfj. Your answers are very informative.


----------



## Erejota

I came here with a Norwegian question (which was very nicely answered in the replies above), and find I learned a little English as well.  I have only heard “hither” used in ancient literature or scriptures, or in a satirical way by someone imitating older English speech- perhaps it is used more commonly in the UK.  I find the parallel between “hit” and “hither” both interesting and useful- thanks to all for the enlightenment!


----------



## winenous

You might like to note that there is also der (there) and dit (thither).

The "inn" and "inne" are also interesting as they are often paired with "i". "Han kommer inn i huset" and "Han sitter inne i huset". I initially found that a puzzling construction, and have never had an explanation of the reason why (to an English speaker) there seems to be a redundant preposition, but it just seems natural to me now.


----------



## Erejota

winenous said:


> You might like to note that there is also der (there) and dit (thither).
> 
> The "inn" and "inne" are also interesting as they are often paired with "i". "Han kommer inn i huset" and "Han sitter inne i huset". I initially found that a puzzling construction, and have never had an explanation of the reason why (to an English speaker) there seems to be a redundant preposition, but it just seems natural to me now.


Hei winenous,
Thank you- I have had the same question about the “extra” preposition.  I posed it to my son-in-law, a native Norwegian with excellent English and Norwegian grammar skills, and he responded that prepositions in Norwegian are confusing- just ask our kids (who are growing up speaking both English and Norwegian).  He acknowledges the “extra” preposition seems redundant, and it could be omitted, but it just doesn’t sound or feel right to him.  I guess that is just one of conventions that vary from language to language…

I found the explanations above by timtfj very helpful regarding place versus direction.  I had heard previously that there were several pairs like those referenced in this thread, but never understood the distinction until now.

Thanks again for responding with your insights!
R.J.


----------



## winenous

Erejota said:


> I have only heard “hither” used in ancient literature or scriptures, or in a satirical way by someone imitating older English speech- perhaps it is used more commonly in the UK.


I would say it is used in British English, but only in certain phrases. Not satirical, but it is perhaps rather literary or old-fashioned. You can for example talk about a "come-hither look" - a look that is seductive or flirtatious. There is also "hither and thither", as in "they ran hither and thither" - they ran about randomly.


----------



## serbianfan

Seems to me that the pair 'her/hit' breaks the rule to some extent, because you can of course say 'hun kommer her', whereas the other pairs mentioned stick to the rule: you will never hear a Norwegian saying "Lars er hjem/inn/ut"* or "Kari skal hjemme/inne/ute"*


----------



## AutumnOwl

serbianfan said:


> Seems to me that the pair 'her/hit' breaks the rule to some extent, because you can of course say 'hun kommer her', whereas the other pairs mentioned stick to the rule: you will never hear a Norwegian saying "Lars er hjem/inn/ut"* or "Kari skal hjemme/inne/ute"*


In Swedish:
Lars är hemma/inne/ute/här/där
Kari ska (kommer/går) hem/in/ut/hit/dit


----------



## raumar

winenous said:


> "Han kommer inn i huset" and "Han sitter inne i huset". I initially found that a puzzling construction, and have never had an explanation of the reason why (to an English speaker) there seems to be a redundant preposition,





Erejota said:


> He acknowledges the “extra” preposition seems redundant, and it could be omitted, but it just doesn’t sound or feel right to him.


If anything is redundant in Norwegian, it's not the preposition "_i_". You can't omit the "_i_" in any of these expressions. I am no grammar expert, but aren't "_inne_" and "_inn_" adverbs?

Anyway, you need both "_inn_" and "_i_" in "_Han kommer inn i huset_" - and likewise both words in "_Han kommer ut i hagen_", "_Han kommer ned i kjelleren_". It may be helpful to regard "_inn i_" (or "_ut i_" etc.) as the Norwegian equivalent to "into" - Norwegian uses two words where English has one.

"_Han sitter inne i huset_" seems different, since it is possible to omit "_inne_". But let's first consider "_Han sitter ute i hagen_". If the speaker is inside the house, he/she could say either "_Han sitter i hagen_" or "_Han sitter ute i hagen_" - but "_ute_" seems a bit more natural, and emphasizes the difference between the speaker on the inside and the other person on the outside.

If the speaker is outside, but not in the garden, there is no need for "_ute_". You could still say "_Han sitter ute i hagen_", to emphasize the "_ute_" part, for example if this is unusual and he usually is inside. If the speaker is out on the street, it might actually be possible to say "_Han sitter inne i hagen_", if the garden is perceived as "inside" relative to the speaker's position (for example on the inside of a garden wall or hedge).

Likewise, "_Han sitter inne i huset_" implies that the speaker is on the outside. It is more difficult to think of a context where "_Han sitter i huset_" would be the natural choice.



serbianfan said:


> Seems to me that the pair 'her/hit' breaks the rule to some extent, because you can of course say 'hun kommer her', whereas the other pairs mentioned stick to the rule


Yes, but as AutumnOwl wrote in post #3 ten years ago, the meaning is not quite the same. "_Hun kommer hit_" means that she comes towards the location of the speaker. "_Hun kommer her_" has a broader meaning. If you watch cross-country skiing on TV, and Therese Johaug appears on your TV screen, coming out of the wood and into the ski stadium, you could say "_Hun kommer her_" or "_Her kommer hun_", but not "_Hun kommer hit_" (unless you expect Johaug to visit you in your own home).

Likewise, you can say "_Her kommer sola_" (Here comes the sun), without implying that the sun is moving towards you.


----------

