1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Norwegian (Bokmål)
  4. >
  5. "Har dere en gjest hjemme hos…

"Har dere en gjest hjemme hos dere?"

Translation:Do you have a guest at home with you?

June 5, 2015



I'm confused with "hos oss" and this O_o why don't used "med" ?


"hos oss" ("hos" in general) specifically indicates that this is happening at our place our home, or, on this sentence, at the place of people the speaker addressess to. "Med oss/dere/ham/henne..." could mean anything. That they have a guest with them in the park or in the restaurant.


Is hos a bit like chez in French?


Yes. Also it looks like the word for house hus so you can kind of think of it as being "house us" - chez comes from the same Latin word as Spanish casa for house, so chez nous would kinda be "house us" too!


If hos is like chez, then is hjemme still necessary?


That's because the 'hjemme' is the 'home' and 'hos' is the home edition of 'med'. Think of it as 'med' as the travel edition and 'hos' as the edition for at home.


French wouldn't need "hjemme", which is why it feels like duplication. I'm also trying to get my head around this :p


I have never studied French, so can't tell.


Could this mean "Do you have a guest at your home?" (but not necessarily with you...maybe you are still on the way or shopping or something.)?


The required English translation is wordy. It should be something like, "Do you have a guest at your home?" At home with you is redundant.


I put "Have you a guest at your house" and it was marked correct.


The problem isn't with the English, but with the Norwegian that's originally preliminarily redundant


hvorfor bruker vi både 'hjemme' og 'hos dere'. hjemme means at home anyway. it could just be hjemme deres? ikke sant?


It would be correct also, but incomplete. But if we want to specify whom house we are in, we must use a structure which contains "hos + Objective Personal Pronouns " in addition.


dere? can it also means 'they'? do they have a guest at home with them?


"They" would be "de". "dere" is second plural or very polite, so the whole sentence would be "har de en gjest hjemme hos dem?"


"Do you all have a guest at your house?" <-- Is this ok?


Yes, that's fine.


Cool, thanks. As a heads up to the devs, it was marked as wrong.


I added it as an answer when I responded to you earlier, so it should be accepted now. :)


Hos dere = correct; hos deres = wrong. No possessive pronoun here? This must be an idiom. "hjemme hos dere" = "at home with you".


hos is a preposition that could roughly translate to at the place of or at the place belonging to. So when you say hos dere you're saying at the place belonging to you, so that's why it's just a pronoun an not a possessive pronoun. It's just that when you translate it to English, it works much better to say at your place.


If I understand the meaning correctly, I'm leaning toward a more idiomatic English translation of:

"Do you have a guest round at your place?"

Where "round" plays the role of "hjemme". But of course the word choice doesn't map across as well for learning purposes.


Why is hjemme not redundant here?


There is some overlap in meaning, but it seems that in this case hjemme is "at home", and hos dere is "with you".


Can someone please give a translation for this where the pronoun is singular...Har du en gjest hjemme hos...?


har du en hjest hjemme hos deg? do you have a guest at (your) home with you?


Takk skal du ha


Despite the current explanations of "hos" and why it's not "med", I still haven't found a logical explanation of why it :

  1. isn't unnecessary redundancy

  2. Isn't "med"

Learn Norwegian (Bokmål) in just 5 minutes a day. For free.