Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Det er legen som roper navnet hennes.

It’s a cleft sentence that puts focus on the element after det er. Here it highlights that it’s specifically legen (the doctor) who is doing the action. A neutral, non-cleft version would be: Legen roper navnet hennes. The cleft is common when answering or correcting: Hvem er det som roper? – Det er legen som roper.

Why is som used, and can I omit it?

Som is the relative word (who/that) introducing the clause and functions as the subject of that clause. When som is the subject, you must include it: Det er legen som roper … If som were the object, it could often be omitted: Det er legen (som) hun hilser på. But not in your sentence.

Why is the verb in simple present (roper) when English says “is calling”?

Norwegian simple present covers both habitual and ongoing actions. So roper can mean “calls” or “is calling” depending on context. You normally don’t need a special progressive form.

Why is it legen (definite) and not en lege?

Det er legen som … implies a specific, identifiable doctor (the one we both know/see).
Det er en lege som … introduces an unspecific doctor (“a doctor is the one who …”), which is a different meaning.

What’s the difference between rope, ringe, rope på, and rope opp?

rope = call/shout aloud: Legen roper navnet hennes.
ringe = call by phone: not used with names like this.
rope på (noen) = call for someone: Legen roper på henne.
rope opp = call out (from a list), do roll call: Legen roper opp navnet hennes.

Why navnet hennes and not hennes navn? Are both correct?

Both are correct:

navnet hennes (postposed possessive + definite noun) is the most neutral and common.
hennes navn (preposed possessive + indefinite noun) puts slightly more emphasis on the possessor and can feel a bit more formal or contrastive. In everyday speech, navnet hennes is preferred.

When do I use hennes vs. sin/sitt/sine?

sin/sitt/sine refers back to the subject of the same clause (reflexive possession).
hennes/hans refers to someone else (non-reflexive possession). In your sentence, the subject of the clause is the doctor (legen). So:
Det er legen som roper navnet sitt. = the doctor calls his/her own name.
Det er legen som roper navnet hennes. = the doctor calls some other woman’s name.

Could hennes refer to the doctor herself here?

Normally no. If the possessor is the subject of the same clause (here, the doctor), standard Norwegian expects the reflexive: sitt. Using hennes in that case would usually be understood as “another woman’s.”

Why is it navnet with a final -t? What are the forms of navn?

Navn is a neuter noun:

Indefinite singular: et navn
Definite singular: navnet
Indefinite plural: navn
Definite plural: navnene So navnet = “the name.”

Where would I put ikke to negate this?

Negate the main clause: Det er ikke legen som roper navnet hennes. (“It’s not the doctor who is calling her name.”)

Can I say Det er legen som ringer navnet hennes?

No. ringe is for phone calls. Use:

rope navnet hennes
rope opp navnet hennes
or rope på henne (call for her, not necessarily saying the name).

Is som only for people?

No. som covers “who/that/which” for people and things: Det er maskinen som lager lyden.

Can I say Doktoren instead of legen?

You can, but lege/legen is the standard word for a medical doctor in Norwegian. doktor/doktoren is used as a title or in some contexts, but legen is more natural here.

Are there alternative ways to express the same focus?

Yes:

Legen er den som roper navnet hennes. (“The doctor is the one who calls her name.”)
Neutral (no cleft): Legen roper navnet hennes.

What’s the difference between henne and hennes?

henne = object pronoun (“her” as object): Han ser henne.
hennes = possessive (“her”/“hers”): navnet hennes. So you cannot say navnet henne; it must be navnet hennes.