Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Hun var ikke vant til å stå på en full buss i rushtiden da hun flyttet hit. - She was not used to standing on a full bus during rush hour when she moved here.

var = past tense of å være (to be)
vant = an adjective meaning used / accustomed, derived from the verb å venne (seg) til (to get used to)
til = preposition to

So the structure is:

å være vant til (noe / å gjøre noe)
= to be used to (something / doing something)

In this sentence:

Hun var vant til å stå...
= She was used to standing...

So vant functions as an adjective after å være, not as a main verb.

Why do we say vant til å stå and not just vant å stå?

In standard Norwegian, the normal pattern is:

å være vant til noe
å være vant til å gjøre noe

So you usually need til before the thing or action you are used to:

Jeg er vant til kulde. = I am used to cold.
Hun er vant til å jobbe sent. = She is used to working late.

You might hear vant å in some dialects or informal speech, but in standard Bokmål:

vant til å stå ✅ (correct and natural)
vant å stå ❌ (non‑standard / dialectal)

For writing and most spoken Norwegian, always use vant til.

Why is å stå (the infinitive) used after vant til, and not some other verb form?

Norwegian normally uses the infinitive with å after many verbs and expressions that talk about habits, wishes, and so on.

After å være vant til, you use:

å + infinitive

Examples:

Jeg er vant til å lese på kvelden.
I am used to reading in the evening.
De var vant til å jobbe mye.
They were used to working a lot.

So in this sentence:

vant til å stå
literally: used to to stand, meaning used to standing.

Where English often uses -ing (standing, working), Norwegian often uses å + infinitive.

Why is ikke placed between var and vant in Hun var ikke vant til...?

Norwegian has a basic rule for main clauses:

The finite verb (here var) usually comes in second position.
Adverbs like ikke come after that finite verb.

So the word order is:

Hun (subject)
var (finite verb – must be in 2nd position)
ikke (negation)
vant til å stå... (rest of the predicate)

You cannot move ikke in front of var in a normal statement:

Hun var ikke vant til... ✅
Hun ikke var vant til... ❌

If you move something else to the front, the finite verb still stays in position 2, and ikke still follows it:

Da hun flyttet hit, var hun ikke vant til å stå på en full buss.
Da hun flyttet hit (1st position), var (2nd), then hun ikke vant...

In å stå på en full buss, why is the preposition på (on) used instead of i (in)? In English we say “on a bus”, but we are physically in it.

Norwegian behaves similarly to English here: with public transport, på is the most natural choice.

Common patterns:

på bussen = on the bus
på trikken = on the tram
på toget = on the train
på flyet = on the plane

So:

å stå på en full buss = to stand on a full bus

You can say i bussen in some contexts, but:

på bussen focuses on being a passenger / using the bus.
i bussen can emphasize the physical inside of the bus (for example, contrasting outside vs inside), and is less typical in this everyday “commuting” context.

In a sentence like this about commuting during rush hour, på en full buss is the normal idiomatic choice.

Does en full buss mean the bus is “full” or that the bus is “drunk”? I’ve seen full used for “drunk” too.

Full has two main everyday meanings in Norwegian:

Drunk – for people:
- Han er full. = He is drunk.
Full / filled up / crowded – for containers, places, vehicles, etc.:
- Glasset er fullt. = The glass is full.
- Bussen er full. = The bus is full / crowded.

In en full buss, we’re clearly in meaning 2: a crowded bus.

Context is what decides the meaning:

If the subject is a person, full usually = drunk.
If it’s a vehicle, room, container, etc., full = filled up / crowded.

You could also say:

en stappfull buss, en svært full buss, en overfylt buss
all meaning a very crowded bus.

Why is it en full buss (indefinite) and not den fulle bussen (definite) here?

Using the indefinite form (en full buss) makes the bus feel general / typical, not like one specific bus that both speaker and listener already know.

Here the idea is:

She wasn’t used to the situation or experience of standing on a crowded bus in rush hour (in general), not just on one particular bus.

Compare:

Hun var ikke vant til å stå på en full buss i rushtiden.
She was not used to standing on a crowded bus during rush hour (in general).
Hun var ikke vant til å stå på den fulle bussen i rushtiden.
Now it sounds like there is a specific bus (for example, the 7:30 bus from her neighborhood) that both people have in mind.

So indefinite singular in Norwegian often expresses a typical / generic situation like English a crowded bus here.

What exactly does i rushtiden mean, and why is rushtiden in the definite form?

Rushtiden is a compound:

rush (from English “rush”)
tid = time
rushtid = rush hour
rushtiden = the rush hour (definite form)

The phrase i rushtiden literally means in the rush hour, idiomatically during rush hour.

Why the definite form?

In English we also usually say during the rush hour or during rush hour (without “a”).
In Norwegian, for this kind of well‑known, regular time period, the definite form is natural:
- i rushtiden = in (the) rush hour
- i helgen = on the weekend
- om morgenen = in the morning

So i rushtiden is the standard way to say during rush hour.

Why is da used in da hun flyttet hit, and not når? Both can mean “when”, right?

Both da and når can translate to when, but they are used in different situations.

da is used for:
- single events in the past, or
- specific periods in the past
når is used for:
- repeated / habitual events (any tense),
- general truths, and
- future.

In this sentence:

da hun flyttet hit = when she moved here
This is one specific event in the past, so da is correct.

Compare:

Da jeg kom hjem, regnet det.
When I came home (that specific time), it was raining.
Når jeg kommer hjem, lager jeg middag.
When I come home (whenever that happens), I make dinner.

So here:

da hun flyttet hit ✅
når hun flyttet hit ❌ (ungrammatical in standard Norwegian for this meaning)

Why is hit used in da hun flyttet hit, and not her or hjem?

These three words express different ideas:

her = here (location, no movement)
hit = (to) here (movement towards here)
hjem = (to) home

After verbs of movement, Norwegian distinguishes between where you are and where you are going:

Jeg er her. = I am here. (location)
Jeg kommer hit. = I am coming here. (movement towards here)

In this sentence, flyttet (moved) is a verb of motion and we are talking about moving to here, so:

da hun flyttet hit = when she moved (to) here

If you said:

da hun flyttet her, it would sound wrong in standard Norwegian.
da hun flyttet hjem = when she moved (back) home – different meaning.

Can da hun flyttet hit be moved to the beginning of the sentence, and does the word order change?

Yes, you can move the time clause to the front. The word order changes slightly because of the verb‑second (V2) rule.

Original:

Hun var ikke vant til å stå på en full buss i rushtiden da hun flyttet hit.

With the time clause first:

Da hun flyttet hit, var hun ikke vant til å stå på en full buss i rushtiden.

What happens:

Da hun flyttet hit takes the first position.
The finite verb (var) must still be in second position.
The subject hun comes after the verb.

So:

Da hun flyttet hit, var hun ikke vant til ... ✅
(not: Da hun flyttet hit, hun var ikke vant til ... ❌)

Could we say Hun var ikke vant med å stå på en full buss instead of vant til? What is the difference between vant til and vant med?

You will hear both vant til and vant med in spoken Norwegian, but they are not used in exactly the same way, and vant til is the safest, most standard choice in this sentence.

General tendencies:

vant til is the standard construction, especially in writing:
- Jeg er vant til kulde.
- Hun er vant til å jobbe mye.
vant med is more colloquial and a bit more common in some dialects, often with nouns:
- Jeg er vant med deg. (I’m used to you.)
- Han er vant med bråk. (He’s used to noise.)

With an infinitive verb (like å stå), vant til å stå is clearly the most natural and standard form. You might hear vant med å stå in casual speech, but for learners and for correct Bokmål, stick to:

Hun var ikke vant til å stå på en full buss ... ✅

Can I use stod instead of sto for “stood” in Norwegian?

Yes. Sto and stod are two forms of the same past tense of å stå (to stand).

sto is the most common modern form in Bokmål.
stod is an older / alternative form but still correct.

So you could say:

Hun var ikke vant til å stå på en full buss ... ✅ (normal today)
Hun var ikke vant til å stod på en full buss ... ❌ (wrong – mixing forms)
Hun sto på bussen. ✅
Hun stod på bussen. ✅ (more old‑fashioned / less common)

In your sentence, keep å stå (infinitive) after vant til, so the question about sto/stod only applies if you were writing a sentence like Hun sto/stod på bussen.