Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Kjærlighet til språk viser hun gjennom dagboken sin. - She shows love for languages through her diary.

Hun viser kjærlighet til språk gjennom dagboken sin.
→ Neutral word order. This is how you would normally say it. The focus is on hun (she) and what she does.
Kjærlighet til språk viser hun gjennom dagboken sin.
→ The phrase kjærlighet til språk is moved to the front for emphasis or as the “topic” of the sentence. It’s a bit like saying in English:
“Love of language is what she shows through her diary.”

So the meaning is the same, but Kjærlighet til språk is highlighted as something important or already known in the context. This kind of fronting is very common in Norwegian for nuance and emphasis.

What is the function of til in kjærlighet til språk, and why not for?

In Norwegian, the usual pattern is:

kjærlighet til + noun = love of / love for (something)

So you get expressions like:

kjærlighet til musikk – love of music
kjærlighet til barn – love for children
kjærlighet til naturen – love of nature

Even though til literally means to, in this fixed expression it matches English of/for. Using for here (kjærlighet for språk) sounds unusual or foreign; til is the idiomatic choice.

So kjærlighet til språk is the natural Norwegian way to say love of languages / love of language.

Is språk singular or plural here, and why is there no article?

Formally, språk (without article) can be either:

indefinite singular: (et) språk → språk
indefinite plural: (flere) språk → språk

In kjærlighet til språk, it’s understood as languages in general – a generic or plural idea, not one specific language.

There is also no article because:

Abstract/generic expressions in Norwegian often drop the article:
- kjærlighet til musikk (love of music)
- interesse for historie (interest in history)

Adding an article would change the feel:

kjærlighet til et språk – love of one (unspecified) language
kjærlighet til språkene – love of the (specific) languages

So the bare språk expresses a general love of languages / of language as a concept.

Can I also say Hun viser kjærlighet til språk gjennom dagboken sin? Does that change the meaning?

Yes, that is completely correct, and it is probably the most neutral way to say it.

Hun viser kjærlighet til språk gjennom dagboken sin.
→ Neutral, everyday word order. No special emphasis.
Kjærlighet til språk viser hun gjennom dagboken sin.
→ Stylistically marked. Puts extra focus on kjærlighet til språk.

The underlying meaning is the same: she shows love of language through her diary. The difference is purely in emphasis and style.

Why does the subject hun come after the verb viser?

This follows the V2 rule (verb-second rule) in Norwegian main clauses:

The finite verb (here: viser) must be the second element in the sentence.

In your sentence:

Kjærlighet til språk – first element (a whole phrase)
viser – finite verb (must be here)
hun – subject
gjennom dagboken sin – the rest (adverbial phrase)

If the subject is first, you see the same pattern:

Hun (1) viser (2) kjærlighet til språk (3) gjennom dagboken sin (4)

So hun viser and viser hun are both possible, depending on what is in first position. The key is: the verb stays in second position.

Why is it dagboken (definite form) and not just en dagbok?

Dagboken is the definite singular form of dagbok:

en dagbok – a diary (indefinite)
dagboken – the diary / her diary (definite)

In the sentence, we are talking about her specific diary that she writes in, not just any random diary. That’s why the definite form is used:

gjennom dagboken sin – through her (own, particular) diary

If you said:

gjennom en dagbok – through a diary

it would sound like “through some diary or other”, not a known personal diary of hers.

What is the difference between sin and hennes in dagboken sin?

Norwegian has two different types of “her”:

sin / si / sitt / sine – reflexive possessive
- Refers back to the subject of the same clause.
- Here: hun … dagboken sin → the diary belongs to hun.
hennes – non‑reflexive “her”
- Used when the possessor is not the subject, or when you want to stress it’s someone else’s.

In this sentence:

Hun viser kjærlighet til språk gjennom dagboken sin.
→ The diary is her own diary.
Hun viser kjærlighet til språk gjennom dagboken hennes.
→ Normally understood as: she shows love of language through another woman’s diary.

So with a 3rd‑person subject like hun, you normally use sin if the thing belongs to that subject, and hennes if it belongs to some other female person.

Why is the possessive placed after the noun (dagboken sin) instead of before (sin dagbok)?

Norwegian allows two basic positions for possessives:

noun + possessive (with noun in definite form)
- dagboken sin
- bilen min – my car
- vennene våre – our friends
possessive + noun (noun indefinite)
- sin dagbok
- min bil
- våre venner

Both dagboken sin and sin dagbok are grammatically correct.

Differences in feel:

dagboken sin
- Very common, especially in spoken language.
- Feels neutral and natural here.
sin dagbok
- A bit more formal, emphatic, or stylistic in Bokmål.
- Often used when you want to stress the possessor, or in more literary style.

In your sentence, dagboken sin is the most idiomatic version.

Could you use gjennom in other similar expressions, and how is it different from med or via?

Yes, gjennom (“through”) is very common for both literal and metaphorical “through”:

Hun viser følelsene sine gjennom musikken.
– She shows her feelings through her music.
Vi lærte mye gjennom prosjektet.
– We learned a lot through the project.

Comparisons:

gjennom dagboken sin
→ The diary is the medium through which the love is expressed.
med dagboken sin
→ “with her diary” – sounds more like she uses the diary as a tool or simply has it with her. Less clearly about expression through it.
via dagboken sin
→ “via her diary” – possible, but more technical/formal, like in written reports or very formal style.

In your sentence, gjennom is the natural, idiomatic choice.

Why is there no comma after Kjærlighet til språk?

Norwegian comma rules differ from English. In main clauses with a simple fronted element, you normally do not put a comma after that element:

I går viste hun kjærlighet til språk. (no comma)
Kjærlighet til språk viser hun gjennom dagboken sin. (no comma)

You usually add a comma when:

a subordinate clause comes first:
- Når hun skriver dagbok, viser hun kjærlighet til språk.
or in some cases with very long or complex initial phrases (more stylistic/optional).

Here, Kjærlighet til språk is just a noun phrase, so there is no comma according to standard rules.

Can I leave out hun and just say Kjærlighet til språk viser gjennom dagboken sin?

No, not in standard Norwegian. You normally cannot drop the subject in finite main clauses.

Kjærlighet til språk viser hun gjennom dagboken sin. ✓
Kjærlighet til språk viser gjennom dagboken sin. ✗ (sounds incomplete/incorrect)

Norwegian is not a “pro‑drop” language like Spanish or Italian; you need an explicit subject (except in very limited, fixed expressions like weather verbs: Det regner.).

If you really wanted to avoid hun, you would have to rephrase the sentence entirely, for example:

Kjærlighet til språk kommer til uttrykk gjennom dagboken hennes.
(“Love of language is expressed through her diary.”)

But that is a different structure; the original pattern still needs hun as subject.