Han har vondt i halsen, men sykepleieren sier at det ikke er farlig.

Breakdown of Han har vondt i halsen, men sykepleieren sier at det ikke er farlig.

være
to be
han
he
det
it
men
but
at
that
ikke
not
si
to say
farlig
dangerous
ha vondt i halsen
to have a sore throat
sykepleieren
the nurse
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Norwegian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Norwegian now

Questions & Answers about Han har vondt i halsen, men sykepleieren sier at det ikke er farlig.

Why do you say han har vondt i halsen instead of something like han er sår i halsen or a direct translation of “has pain in the throat”?

Norwegian normally talks about pain with the fixed pattern:

[subject] + har + vondt + i + [body part]
= [subject] has pain / has an ache in [body part]

So:

  • Han har vondt i halsen = He has a sore throat / His throat hurts.
  • Jeg har vondt i ryggen = My back hurts.
  • Hun har vondt i hodet = She has a headache.

You can say other things:

  • Han har sår hals – also means He has a sore throat (quite common too).
  • Halsen hans er sårHis throat is sore.

But har vondt i … is the most neutral, everyday way to express pain in a body part.


What exactly is vondt here? Is it an adjective, a noun, or something else?

Vondt is the neuter singular form of the adjective vond (painful, sore, bad).

In the pattern ha vondt i [kroppsdel], vondt behaves almost like a noun (pain), but grammatically it is still the neuter form of the adjective. You don’t change it:

  • Jeg har vondt i magen.
  • Hun har vondt i hodet.
  • De har vondt i beina.

It always stays vondt, regardless of which body part you mention.


Why is it i halsen and not på halsen?

The preposition depends on whether we see something as inside / in the body, or on the surface.

  • i halsenin the throat (inside)

    • vondt i halsen – pain in the throat
    • noe sitter fast i halsen – something is stuck in the throat
  • på halsenon the neck / on the outside

    • et sår på halsen – a wound on the neck
    • et skjerf på halsen – a scarf on the neck

Pain in a body part is normally i + body part, not .


Why is it halsen (definite form) and not en hals or just hals?

Norwegian usually uses the definite form for body parts when it’s obvious who they belong to (from the subject):

  • Han har vondt i halsen.He has a sore throat.
  • Jeg vasker hendene.I’m washing my hands.
  • Hun brakk armen.She broke her arm.

You normally don’t say:

  • Han har vondt i hans hals. (too literal, sounds foreign)
  • Han har vondt i en hals. (means “a throat” in general, strange)

The subject (han) already shows whose throat it is, so Norwegian uses the throat (halsen).


Could you also say Han har vond hals or Han har en vond hals?

They are grammatically possible, but they sound less natural in everyday speech.

  • Han har vond hals. – might be heard, but sounds a bit compressed / non‑standard.
  • Han har en vond hals. – sounds rather odd; more like “He has a bad throat” as a permanent quality, not just today’s pain.

The most idiomatic ways to say He has a sore throat are:

  • Han har vondt i halsen.
  • Han har sår hals. ✅ (also common)

Those are the forms you should prioritize.


Is har here a kind of present perfect, like English “has”, or just a simple present?

In han har vondt i halsen, har is simply the present tense of “å ha” (to have):

  • han har = he has
  • jeg har = I have
  • vi har = we have

Norwegian present perfect is har + past participle, for example:

  • Han har hatt vondt i halsen i tre dager.
    He has had a sore throat for three days.

So in your sentence, har is not a perfect; it’s just present tense “has”.


What gender are hals and sykepleier, and how can I see that from halsen and sykepleieren?

Both hals and sykepleier are common gender (the en‑words).

  • en halshalsen
  • en sykepleiersykepleieren

Patterns:

  • Indefinite singular: en [noun]
  • Definite singular: [noun] + en

The ‑en ending in halsen and sykepleieren shows you they are en‑words (common gender), not et‑words (neuter).


Why is it sykepleieren (the nurse) and not en sykepleier (a nurse)?

Using the definite form sykepleieren implies that:

  • this is a specific nurse both speaker and listener can identify
    • e.g. the nurse on duty, the nurse they just met, the nurse in that context.

Examples:

  • Sykepleieren sier at det ikke er farlig.
    The nurse says it isn’t dangerous.

If you say en sykepleier, you mean some nurse, one nurse, not specifically identified:

  • En sykepleier sier at det ikke er farlig.
    A nurse says it isn’t dangerous. (we don’t know which one, and it doesn’t matter)

In your sentence, we typically imagine a specific nurse treating him, so the definite form fits.


Why is there a comma before men?

Norwegian comma rules require a comma between two main clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction like men, og, eller, for, så, when both clauses have their own subject and verb.

Here you have two main clauses:

  1. Han har vondt i halsen
  2. sykepleieren sier at det ikke er farlig

They are joined by men, so you write:

  • Han har vondt i halsen, men sykepleieren sier at det ikke er farlig.

Hence the comma before men.


How does the word order work in men sykepleieren sier at det ikke er farlig?

There are two things going on:

  1. Main clause after a conjunction (V2 rule)
    In Norwegian main clauses, the finite verb is normally in second position (V2).
    After men, the word order in the new main clause is:

    • sykepleieren (subject – first position)
    • sier (verb – second position)
    • at det ikke er farlig (the rest)

    So: men sykepleieren sier … follows the V2 rule.

  2. Subordinate clause after “at”
    In the subordinate clause at det ikke er farlig, the order is:

    • at (subordinating conjunction)
    • det (subject)
    • ikke (adverb)
    • er (verb)
    • farlig (predicate)

    This subject – adverb – verb order (det ikke er) is typical for subordinate clauses in Norwegian.


Why is it det ikke er farlig and not det er ikke farlig?

Because this is a subordinate clause introduced by at.

  • In a main clause, the normal order (after the verb in second place) is:

    • det er ikke farlig.
  • In a subordinate clause (after at, fordi, hvis, etc.), the standard pattern is:

    • subject – adverb – verb
    • det ikke er farlig

So:

  • Det er ikke farlig. – main clause
  • … at det ikke er farlig. – subordinate clause

Same words, but different order due to clause type.


What does det refer to in at det ikke er farlig? Can you leave det out?

Here det is a dummy subject referring to the whole situation (his sore throat / being ill):

  • Sykepleieren sier at det ikke er farlig.
    The nurse says that it isn’t dangerous / serious.

You cannot leave it out:

  • ✗ sykepleieren sier at ikke er farlig – ungrammatical.

In spoken language, you can sometimes drop at after sier, and then you get:

  • Sykepleieren sier det ikke er farlig.

Here det still functions as the subject of er, and the sentence is acceptable, especially in speech. But you still need the det.


Does farlig always mean dangerous, or can it also mean serious in this context?

The basic meaning of farlig is dangerous, able to cause harm.

In medical or everyday reassurance, ikke farlig often corresponds to English “not serious / nothing dangerous”, as in:

  • Det er ikke farlig, det går over av seg selv.
    It’s not dangerous, it will pass on its own.
    → Often understood as “It’s not serious; you don’t need to worry.”

So here ikke farlig can be understood as not dangerous / not serious / nothing to worry about, depending on context and tone.