Hun er vant til mørketiden nå.

She is used to the dark season now.

Breakdown of Hun er vant til mørketiden nå.

• være: to be
• hun: she
• til: to
• nå: now
• vant: used to
• mørketiden: the dark season

Questions & Answers about Hun er vant til mørketiden nå.

What does er vant til literally mean, and how does it compare to English?

Er vant til literally means “is accustomed to” / “is used to.”

• er = is (present tense of å være – to be)
• vant = used/accustomed (past participle functioning like an adjective)
• til = to

So Hun er vant til mørketiden nå corresponds very closely to:

• “She is used to the dark season now.”

What exactly is vant here? Is it a verb form or an adjective?

Vant here is the past participle of the verb å venne (seg) til – to get used to / to accustom (oneself) to.

In this construction it behaves like an adjective:

• å venne seg til noe – to get used to something
• Hun har vennet seg til mørketiden. – She has gotten used to the dark season.
• Hun er vant til mørketiden. – She is used to the dark season.

So grammatically:

• er (verb) + vant (adjective-like participle) = “is used (to)”

Why do we need til after vant? Could we say Hun er vant mørketiden?

No, you need til. The fixed pattern is:

å være vant til + NOUN / VERB-INF
(to be used to + noun / verb-ing)

Examples:

• Hun er vant til mørketiden. – She is used to the dark season.
• Hun er vant til kulda. – She is used to the cold.
• Hun er vant til å jobbe sent. – She is used to working late.

Saying Hun er vant mørketiden is ungrammatical in standard Norwegian; til is required after vant.

Why is it mørketiden (with -en) and not just mørketid?

Norwegian usually marks definiteness with a suffix on the noun:

• mørketid = “dark time / dark season” (indefinite)
• mørketiden = “the dark time / the dark season” (definite)

Here we are talking about a specific, known period (the dark season in northern Norway), so Norwegian uses the definite form:

• Hun er vant til mørketiden nå.
  → She is used to the dark season now.

Using mørketid without -en would sound incomplete here, a bit like saying “She is used to dark season now” in English.

What does mørketiden refer to culturally? Is it just “winter”?

No, mørketiden is more specific than just winter.

• mørke = darkness
• tid = time
• mørketid(en) = “(the) dark time/season”

In Norwegian (especially in the north), mørketiden is the period in winter when the sun does not rise above the horizon (the polar night). It’s a well-known seasonal phenomenon in Norway.

So:

• vinter = winter (the season generally)
• mørketiden = the particular winter period of continuous or almost continuous darkness.

Can I move nå in the sentence, or must it stay at the end?

You can move nå. All of these are grammatical, with only slight differences in emphasis:

1. Hun er vant til mørketiden nå.
   – Neutral, very natural: “She is used to the dark season now.”

2. Nå er hun vant til mørketiden.
   – Emphasis on now as a contrast: “Now she is used to the dark season (as opposed to before).”

3. Hun er nå vant til mørketiden.
   – Also correct, but sounds a bit more formal or written.

Position changes nuance, but all three follow normal word order rules.

Why is it Hun and not Henne at the start of the sentence?

Because Hun is the subject form (nominative), while henne is the object form (accusative/dative).

• Hun = she (subject)
• Henne = her (object)

Examples:

• Hun er vant til mørketiden. – She is used to the dark season. (subject)
• Jeg så henne i går. – I saw her yesterday. (object)

At the start of this sentence, we need the subject: Hun.

Why is the verb er in second position? Is that a rule?

Yes. Norwegian main clauses follow the V2 rule (verb-second), similar to German:

• The finite verb (here: er) usually comes second in the sentence.

In Hun er vant til mørketiden nå:

1. Hun – first element (subject)
2. er – second element (finite verb)
3. vant til mørketiden nå – rest of the sentence

If you start the sentence with something else, the verb is still second:

• Nå er hun vant til mørketiden.
  (1. Nå, 2. er, 3. hun vant til mørketiden)

What is the difference between er vant til and har vennet seg til?

They are related but not identical:

• Hun er vant til mørketiden.
  = She is used to the dark season.
  → Focus on her current state.

• Hun har vennet seg til mørketiden.
  = She has gotten used to the dark season.
  → Emphasizes the process of becoming used to it.

In many contexts either could work, but:

• er vant til describes the result/state.
• har vennet seg til highlights the process of getting there.

How does er vant til differ from pleier å?

They express different ideas:

• å være vant til = to be used to (something)
  → talks about familiarity / adaptation.

• å pleie å + infinitive = to usually / typically do (something)
  → talks about habitual actions.

Compare:

• Hun er vant til mørketiden.
  – She is used to the dark season. (It doesn’t bother her.)

• Hun pleier å reise bort i mørketiden.
  – She usually travels away during the dark season. (Her habit.)

Can I say Hun har blitt vant til mørketiden nå instead? Is that different?

Yes, that’s correct and very natural. It adds a bit more sense of change over time:

• Hun har blitt vant til mørketiden nå.
  – She has now become used to the dark season.

Har blitt vant til emphasizes that she wasn’t used to it before, but now she is.
Er vant til just states her current state, without stressing the change as much.

How do you pronounce mørketiden, especially the ø?

Approximate pronunciation (Bokmål, standard-ish):

• mørke ≈ “MUR-keh” (but with ø not English u)
• tiden ≈ “TEE-den”

The tricky part is ø in mørke:

• Rounded vowel, somewhere between English “fur” and French “peu”.
• Lips rounded, tongue relatively central.

Stress:

• Primary stress on the first syllable: MØR-ke-ti-den
  (ˈmør.kə.tiː.den)

So the whole word is roughly: MØR-ke-tee-den (with Norwegian vowels, not English ones).