"We are here to see her."
Translation:Vi er her for å se henne.
Check my long comment, it makes sense, but now that you mention "Jeg vil ha noen å spise onst med" my thought is that med is apart of the prepositional clause in English.
Such as saying, "with everyone here"
Since å spise means to eat it is still just 1 verb and the å/to does not count as the preposition however we are using with infinitively so med is serving the placement as the preposition in the clause. Though it's at the end, this is still not english, however we do not need to use for to complete the infinitive prepositional clause in Norwegian because of the use of med
From my understanding:
We can say, "Jeg vil ha noen å spise ost med." or if signifying a person or pronoun, "Jeg vil ha for å spise ost med kona mi."
Now this could be wrong and we may not need for in sentence 2 since we used med if you got any info lemme know!
Hey Tyler, this might confuse things, but the following is how I'm currently thinking. (And I might very well be wrong. If any snill native-speaker wants to step in, please go ahead!)
So the problem is: when you have an English sentence that has "to + verb", when do you need a "for" in Norwegian, and when do you not?
My basic thought: you need the "for" when what you're translating is more or less a "purpose clause", and you don't need it when it's an explanatory "prolative infinitive".
Purpose clause: basically, when you say something like "in order that" or "so that" in English.
Prolative infinitive: I'm using this as an umbrella term for an infinitive that adds more information to complete something (a verb, a noun, a phrase, etc) that is felt to be incomplete by itself. A prolative infinitive can sometimes express purpose as well, but often doesn't.
Examples where you wouldn't use "for" in Norwegian:
- I dared to speak to her. (You could think of the "to speak" as a noun clause that is the object of "dare".)
- I have much to do. (In this case the prolative isn't the object of the verb "have"; it just fills out the meaning of the adjective "much".)
- I hoped to see her again. (The infinitive is the object of the verb. But I think Norwegian uses an "at" clause instead of an infinitive with this verb. "I hope to see you again" = "Jeg håper at jeg skal se deg igjen.")
Key point: In all of the above, you couldn't have substituted in "in order that" and meant the same thing. "I dared in order to speak to her" doesn't mean "I dared to speak to her".
Examples where I think you would use "for" in Norwegian:
- This is the knife I used to kill him.
- I needed goggles to swim.
Key point: In both the above, you can substitute in "in order that" and mean the same thing.
So, if you go back to the two main examples:
- I want someone to eat cheese with.
- We came to visit her.
You can substitute in "in order that" in the second, but not in the first. So, following the pattern, "for" is needed in Norwegian in the second, but not in the first.
Okay, so for in this sentence is a like a prepositional phrase? (From my example)
Heres my understanding: "We are here." Can be a sentence itself. 'To' is a preposition for the clause of to se her.
å se, as a verb means "to see." So we have "We are here to å se her." "... to to see her..." Doesnt make sense in english.
Question: So in order to make sense in Norwegian, "...for å se henne..." For is used as the start of the prepositional clause?
“Hit” means “to here”, “hither”. Use it when someone is moving from another place to this place. “Jeg kom hit” (“I came here”).
“Her” means “in this place”. Use it when someone isn’t moving from one place to another. “Jeg er her” (“I am here”).
There are a variety of similar Norwegian adverb pairings.
- Dit vs der
- Hjem vs hjemme
- Bort vs borte
- Frem vs fremme
- Opp vs oppe
- Ned vs nede
- Ut vs ute
- Inn vs inne