Han kan drukne i vannet.

Because kan is a modal verb, and in Norwegian, modal verbs are followed by the bare infinitive.

So you say:

• Han kan drukne
• not Han kan å drukne

This is the same pattern you see with other modals:

• Jeg kan svømme = I can swim
• Du må gå = You must go
• Vi skal spise = We are going to eat / We shall eat

So drukne is in the infinitive, but without å after kan.

Kan can express either:

• ability: can
• possibility: may / might / could

In this sentence, the most natural reading is usually possibility or risk: he could/might drown.

That is because the pure ability reading sounds a bit odd in context—saying someone “is able to drown” is not usually the main point. More often, the speaker means that drowning is a real possibility.

So context matters:

• Han kan drukne i vannet often implies He could drown in the water
• but grammatically, kan is still just the present-tense modal form

Drukne is the infinitive form of the verb.

Basic forms are:

• å drukne = to drown
• drukner = drowns / is drowning
• druknet = drowned

In this sentence, it stays as drukne because it comes after kan.

Compare:

• Han drukner. = He is drowning / He drowns.
• Han kan drukne. = He can / could drown.

So the difference is not the meaning of drukne itself, but the grammar required after kan.

Because han is the subject form of the pronoun.

In this sentence, han is the one doing or experiencing the action, so it must be the subject:

• Han kan drukne i vannet.

Ham is traditionally the object form, used when the person receives the action:

• Jeg ser ham. = I see him.

So here, han is correct because he is the subject of the sentence.

In Norwegian, the definite article is usually added to the end of the noun.

So:

• vann = water
• vannet = the water

This is very common in Norwegian:

• bok = book
• boka / boken = the book
• hus = house
• huset = the house

So vannet is not a special word you just have to memorize as a whole; it is:

• vann
  • -et

Since vann is a neuter noun, its definite singular form is vannet.

The difference is mainly specific versus general.

• i vannet = in the water, meaning a specific body of water or the water being talked about
• i vann = in water, more general or substance-based

So:

• Han kan drukne i vannet suggests a particular situation or place
• Han kan drukne i vann sounds more general and less tied to a specific scene

English often uses the water in the same way when the situation is clear, so i vannet feels natural in context.

Because i means in, and drowning happens in water.

So:

• i vannet = in the water

This is the natural choice when someone is physically in the water.

A learner might wonder about på, but that would change the meaning:

• på vannet = on the water

That can mean on the surface of the water, or out on the water in a boat, depending on context. But for drowning, i vannet is the normal expression.

Yes, but Norwegian main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb usually stays in the second position.

The basic sentence is:

• Han kan drukne i vannet.

If you move another part to the front, the verb still has to stay second:

• I vannet kan han drukne.

That is still grammatical, but it gives extra emphasis to i vannet.

You also see the verb move to the front in a yes/no question:

• Kan han drukne i vannet?

So the sentence can change shape, but the placement of the finite verb kan is very important.

No. It is often literal, but it can also be used figuratively, much like English drown.

For example:

• drukne i arbeid = drown in work
• drukne i informasjon = drown in information

In your sentence, though, the meaning is clearly the literal one because of i vannet.