Han er smittet.

Because er smittet describes his condition/state: he is in an infected state.

By contrast, har smittet usually means has infected someone else.

• Han er smittet. = he is infected
• Han har smittet flere andre. = he has infected several others

So er tells you what state he is in, while har would normally make han the person doing the infecting.

Smittet is the past participle of the verb å smitte.

In this sentence, it works much like an adjective after er:

• å smitte = to infect
• smittet = infected

So Han er smittet is literally something like He is infected.

These are closely related, but they focus on different things:

• Han er smittet.
  Focuses on the current state. He is infected now.

• Han ble smittet.
  Focuses on the event of becoming infected. He got infected / was infected.

• Han har blitt smittet.
  Focuses on the fact that the infection has happened and is relevant now. He has become infected / has been infected.

A simple way to remember it:

• er smittet = state
• ble smittet = event in the past
• har blitt smittet = completed event with present relevance

Not necessarily.

Smittet means infected. A person can be infected without yet feeling ill or showing symptoms.

So:

• smittet = infected
• syk = ill / sick

Someone may be:

• smittet, men ikke syk ennå = infected, but not sick yet

This is an important distinction in everyday Norwegian, especially in health-related contexts.

No. These words are related, but they mean different things:

• smittet = infected
• smittsom = contagious / infectious

So:

• Han er smittet. = he is infected
• Han er smittsom. = he is contagious

A person can be smittet without necessarily being very smittsom, depending on the disease and the stage of infection.

Yes. You can add that information.

A very common pattern is:

• Han er smittet med influensa. = He is infected with the flu.
• Han er smittet med viruset. = He is infected with the virus.

So med is often used for the disease, virus, or infection itself.

Yes, but Norwegian often expresses this more naturally with ble smittet av when you want to highlight the source.

For example:

• Han ble smittet av broren sin. = He was infected by his brother.

With er smittet, you may also see source information in context, but when talking about who caused it, ble smittet av often sounds more natural because it focuses on the infecting event.

A useful contrast:

• Han er smittet med covid. = state + what he has
• Han ble smittet av en kollega. = event + who infected him

You place ikke after the verb:

• Han er ikke smittet. = He is not infected.

This is the normal position in a main clause:

• subject + verb + ikke
  • rest

So:

• Han er smittet.
• Han er ikke smittet.

In a yes/no question, Norwegian usually puts the verb first:

• Er han smittet? = Is he infected?

That is the normal word order change:

• statement: Han er smittet.
• question: Er han smittet?

If you want a fuller question, you could also say:

• Er han smittet med influensa?
• Er han smittet ennå?

In this kind of sentence after er, smittet normally stays smittet:

• Han er smittet.
• Hun er smittet.
• Barnet er smittet.
• De er smittet.

So for learners, the safest rule here is: after er, keep smittet unchanged.

If the word is placed before a noun, other forms can appear, especially in more formal or written language, but in the sentence pattern you are learning here, smittet is the form to use.

Yes, absolutely.

If the context already makes it clear what disease or infection people are talking about, Han er smittet sounds completely natural.

For example, in a conversation about an outbreak, everyone may already know what is meant, so there is no need to repeat it.

This is similar to English, where He is infected can also stand on its own when the context is clear.

It is closely related to the passive, yes.

Smittet comes from a verb, and er smittet can be understood as a resulting state after someone has infected him. That is why it feels similar to English He is infected.

For a learner, the most useful practical idea is this:

• think of er smittet as describing the result/state
• think of ble smittet as describing the action/event

So you do not need to analyze it deeply every time, but it helps to know why Norwegian uses this structure.

It is roughly pronounced like SMIT-teh in many learners’ approximations, with the stress on the first syllable.

A few helpful points:

• sm at the start is pronounced clearly, as in English small
• the tt gives a short vowel before it
• the final -et is usually pronounced as a separate weak ending in careful speech

Exact pronunciation varies somewhat by dialect, but if you say something close to SMIT-teh, you will be understood.