Om kvelden sitter vi på uteplassen med ullgensere og ser på fjorden.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Norwegian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Norwegian now

Questions & Answers about Om kvelden sitter vi på uteplassen med ullgensere og ser på fjorden.

Why is it om kvelden and not i kvelden or på kvelden?

Norwegian normally uses om (or ) with parts of the day when you talk about when something happens:

  • om morgenen – in the morning(s)
  • om dagen – in the daytime / during the day
  • om kvelden – in the evening(s)
  • om natten – at night

I kvelden is not idiomatic Norwegian.

Om kvelden and på kvelden are both possible in most contexts. Rough tendencies:

  • om kvelden – often feels a bit more neutral/standard and can easily mean “in the evenings (generally)”.
  • på kvelden – also common; in some dialects it’s more frequent and can mean either “in the evening (today)” or “in the evenings”.

In this sentence, om kvelden presents the action as a regular evening routine. På kvelden would also be acceptable with almost the same meaning.


Why is it kvelden (definite form) and not just kveld?

Norwegian often uses the definite singular for parts of the day when describing a typical or repeated situation:

  • om morgenen – (in) the morning / in the mornings
  • om dagen – (in) the daytime / during the day
  • om kvelden – (in) the evening / in the evenings

So even though English usually says “in the evenings” (plural), Norwegian likes definite singular: kvelden, morgenen, natten.

You can also say om kveldene (“in the evenings”), but om kvelden is very standard for a habitual action like this.


What’s the difference between om kvelden and i kveld?
  • om kvelden = “in the evening(s)” in general, describing a habit or something that regularly happens in the evenings.

    • Example: Om kvelden leser jeg bøker. – In the evenings, I read books.
  • i kveld = “this evening / tonight”, i.e. a specific evening (usually today).

    • Example: I kveld leser jeg en bok. – Tonight I’m reading a book.

In your sentence, om kvelden tells us this is a regular evening routine, not just what will happen this evening.


Why is the word order Om kvelden sitter vi and not Om kvelden vi sitter?

Norwegian main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb (here: sitter) must appear in second position in the sentence.

  • If the subject is first:
    Vi sitter på uteplassen.Vi (1st) + sitter (2nd)

  • If you move a time phrase to the front, the verb still has to be second:
    Om kvelden sitter vi på uteplassen.
    Here:

    • 1st element: Om kvelden (a whole time phrase)
    • 2nd element: sitter (the verb)
    • 3rd element: vi (the subject)

*Om kvelden vi sitter … breaks this V2 rule, so it’s ungrammatical.


In English we’d say “we are sitting / we are watching”. Why is Norwegian using sitter and ser (simple present) instead of a continuous form?

Norwegian normally has only one present tense, called presens:

  • vi sitter – we sit / we are sitting
  • vi ser – we see / we are seeing / we are watching

Context decides whether you interpret it as a general habit or something happening right now.

In this sentence, the adverbial om kvelden clearly signals a habitual action, so sitter and ser are understood like “(we) sit and watch” or “(we) usually sit and watch”.

Norwegian does have progressive-like constructions (holder på å sitte, er i ferd med å se), but they are much rarer and sound more specific or technical than English -ing forms. You don’t need them here.


Why is it på uteplassen and not i uteplassen?

The preposition is used with many nouns that refer to open areas, surfaces, or platforms, especially when you are on or at that area:

  • på terrassen – on the terrace
  • på verandaen – on the veranda
  • på balkongen – on the balcony
  • på plassen – on the (town) square
  • på uteplassen – on the outdoor sitting area / patio

I is more “inside” something enclosed (a room, a building, a box, a forest, etc.). Since uteplassen is an outdoor area you sit on, is natural here. I uteplassen would sound wrong.


What exactly does uteplassen mean? Is it just “outside”?

No, uteplassen is more specific than just “outside”.

It’s a compound:

  • ute – out / outside
  • plass – place / spot / area
  • uteplass – an outdoor area where you sit / stay, often like a patio, terrace, or outdoor seating area
  • uteplassenthe outdoor seating area (definite singular: uteplass + en)

So på uteplassen is something like “on the patio / on the outdoor seating area”, not just a vague “outside”.


Why does med ullgensere mean “wearing woollen sweaters”? Why med?

The preposition med literally means “with”, but in Norwegian it is often used to express “with (something) on / equipped with / carrying”:

  • med briller – wearing glasses
  • med hatt – wearing a hat
  • med paraply – with an umbrella (carrying one)
  • med ullgensere – with wool sweaters (on)

So sitter vi på uteplassen med ullgensere is understood as “we sit on the patio wearing wool sweaters”.

You can also occasionally see med ullgensere på, where makes the “on (our bodies)” part extra explicit, but it’s not necessary.


What form is ullgensere? How is it built from the basic noun?

The basic noun is:

  • en genser – a sweater / jumper

With ull (wool) in front, you get a compound:

  • en ullgenser – a wool sweater

The plural forms are:

  • flere ullgensere – (several) wool sweaters (indefinite plural)
  • ullgenserne – the wool sweaters (definite plural; Bokmål alt. ullgenserne / ullgenserene, depending on norm)

In the sentence we have ullgensere:

  • ullgensere (no article) = indefinite plural, so just “wool sweaters”.

Norwegian, like English, normally doesn’t use any article with indefinite plural in this kind of “wearing” phrase: med ullgensere, “wearing wool sweaters”.


Could it also be med ullgenserne? What would change?

Yes, med ullgenserne is grammatically correct, but the meaning shifts slightly:

  • med ullgensere – wearing (some) wool sweaters; the type of clothing is in focus, not which specific ones.
  • med ullgenserne – wearing the wool sweaters (the ones already known in the context).

So you would use med ullgenserne if both speaker and listener know exactly which sweaters are meant (for example, “those wool sweaters we always use at the cabin”). In many neutral descriptions, the indefinite med ullgensere sounds more natural.


Why is it ser på fjorden and not just ser fjorden?

Norwegian distinguishes between:

  • se på noe – literally “see on something”, but idiomatically “look at / watch something”

    • Vi sitter og ser på fjorden. – We sit and look at / gaze at the fjord.
  • se noe – simply “see something” (perceive it visually, notice it)

    • Vi ser fjorden fra vinduet. – We can see the fjord from the window.

In your sentence, the idea is that they are actively looking at / watching the fjord for a while, so ser på fjorden is the natural choice.

Ser fjorden would sound more like “we can see the fjord (it’s visible to us)”, not that you are deliberately sitting there admiring it.


Why is it fjorden (definite) and not just fjord?

As with kvelden and uteplassen, fjorden is in the definite singular:

  • en fjord – a fjord
  • fjorden – the fjord

Norwegian usually uses the definite form when talking about:

  1. Something that is uniquely identifiable in the situation

    • If there is one clear fjord you can see from the outdoor place, that will naturally be fjorden (“the fjord”).
  2. Well-known geographical features locally

    • People in a fjord area often say fjorden because it’s obvious which one they mean.

So ser på fjorden means that they are looking at the specific fjord that is part of their surroundings.


Could the sentence also be Vi sitter på uteplassen om kvelden og ser på fjorden? Is there any difference?

Yes, that’s perfectly correct:

  • Om kvelden sitter vi på uteplassen …
  • Vi sitter på uteplassen om kvelden …

Both are grammatical. The difference is word order and emphasis:

  • Starting with Om kvelden slightly emphasizes when this happens (the time frame).
  • Starting with Vi is more neutral and subject-focused.

In everyday speech, both orders are common. The fronted time phrase plus V2 (Om kvelden sitter vi …) is also a very typical written style.


Why is the subject vi not repeated after og? Could I say … sitter vi … og vi ser på fjorden?

You can repeat the subject:

  • Om kvelden sitter vi på uteplassen med ullgensere og vi ser på fjorden.

This is grammatical, but it sounds a bit heavier and is usually only done for extra emphasis or clarity in long, complex sentences.

In Norwegian (as in English), when two verbs share the same subject, it’s natural to mention the subject once and then just connect the verbs with og:

  • Vi sitter … og ser på fjorden. – We sit … and (we) look at the fjord.

So the original … sitter vi … og ser på fjorden is the most normal, fluent version.