"Vi ses senere."

Translation:See you later.

August 9, 2015



is this a phrase commonly used?

  • 126

Yes, if you're parting with someone you're expecting to see again before the day is over.

If you don't expect to see them again that soon, just skip the "senere" and it becomes more of an open ended "See you" or "See you soon".


much obliged :)


Vi ses senere, ... alligator


Why does it not accept "I will see you later"? As far as I can tell, that it an entirely correct translation as it preserves the meaning (even if the original has no mention of the first person).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0bidd0Uhvk Bill Haley & Comets - See You Later Alligator


Why sonetimes "sees" and sometimes "ses"?


Both are correct, you can choose which you wanna use.


Out of curiosity, how does this sentence work grammatically? Is 'ses' passive, or an idiomatic contraction of 'ser oss', or something else?


"Ses" is passive - it literally means "We are seen".


That is what I thought or assumed too, and the same for "vi snakkes" and some other similar phrases. But it turns out these are not the passive forms of å se and å snakke. They are their own s-verbs. For example, å ses / å sees: https://ordbok.uib.no/perl/ordbok.cgi?OPP=ses&bokmaal=+&ordbok=bokmaal

So what these particular s-verbs are doing is rolling up the 'hverandre', making it possible to say "see each other" in a very compact way. But I think the intuition (or inference from the -s) that you and I both had about this being a passive construction is not entirely off the mark. I don't know for sure, but I have a feeling that passive voice and reciprocality have something to do with why s-verbs arose in the first place, as well as convenience.

It's interesting to note that "vi ses" is both the present and the imperative of the verb å ses. So it seems we can think of its nearest translation being equally "we see each other" and the imperative "see each other".

I could be mistaken about all this, given that some of the mouse-over or word-click hints for "ses" are written as though it were the passive form of "å se". But it seems the ordbok says otherwise and I thought that made interesting food for thought.


I do not get the difference between "ser" and "ses".

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