Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Hun skulle ringe meg i dag, men hun ringer i morgen. - She was going to call me today, but she is calling tomorrow.

Hun skal ringe meg i dag = She is going to call me today (a plan for the future, spoken from now).
Hun skulle ringe meg i dag = She was supposed to call me today (a plan seen from a point in the past, or an expectation that didn’t happen as planned).

In this sentence, we’re talking about something that was planned/expected but is now not happening as planned, which is why skulle (past) is used. It also often carries the nuance of a broken or changed plan.

Does Hun skulle ringe meg i dag mean that she actually called or that she didn’t?

By itself, Hun skulle ringe meg i dag only says that she was supposed to call today. It doesn’t strictly say whether she did or didn’t.

However, in the full sentence:

Hun skulle ringe meg i dag, men hun ringer i morgen.

the men (but) plus the second clause hun ringer i morgen clearly tells us she did not call today; instead, the call will happen tomorrow.

Why is ringer (present tense) used for a future action in hun ringer i morgen?

Norwegian very often uses the present tense to talk about the future when the future time is clear from context:

hun ringer i morgen = she’s calling tomorrow / she will call tomorrow
jeg drar neste uke = I’m leaving next week

Because i morgen (tomorrow) is there, the time is unambiguous, so present tense is natural.
Using skal is also possible:

hun skal ringe i morgen

but present + future time expression is extremely common and sounds very natural.

What is the difference between Hun skulle ringe meg i dag, men hun ringer i morgen and Hun skal ringe meg i dag, men hun ringer i morgen?

Hun skulle ringe meg i dag, men hun ringer i morgen.
Focus: She was supposed to call today (that was the original plan), but the plan has changed; now she’s calling tomorrow.
Hun skal ringe meg i dag, men hun ringer i morgen.
This is odd or contradictory, because skal ringe i dag states a plan for today, and ringer i morgen contradicts it. It can be said jokingly or in very specific contexts, but normally you wouldn’t phrase it this way.

To express a changed plan, skulle in the first part is the natural choice.

Could you say Hun skal ringe meg i morgen instead of hun ringer i morgen? Is there any difference?

Yes, you can say:

Hun skal ringe meg i morgen.

Both:

hun ringer i morgen
hun skal ringe i morgen

mean she will call tomorrow.

Nuance:

hun ringer i morgen – very natural, often a bit more matter‑of‑fact.
hun skal ringe i morgen – can sound slightly more like a plan or arrangement, sometimes with a bit more emphasis on intention or schedule.

In everyday speech, they’re both common and usually interchangeable.

Why is it ringe meg and not something like ringer meg or ringe til meg?

Here ringe is the infinitive form (to call), used after skulle:

skulle + infinitive → skulle ringe

So:

Hun ringer meg = She calls me (present tense verb).
Hun skulle ringe meg = She was supposed to call me (modal + infinitive).

About til:

In Norwegian, when you call someone on the phone, you usually say ringe noen without til:
- ringe meg, ringe henne, ringe sjefen.

Ringe til noen also exists, but it is less common in everyday speech and can sound a bit more formal or old‑fashioned in many contexts.

Why is it meg and not min or meg selv?

meg = me (object pronoun).
min = my / mine (possessive).
meg selv = myself (reflexive/emphatic).

In this sentence:

Hun skulle ringe meg = She was supposed to call me.

We need the object of the verb to call, so we use the object form meg.
Min would describe possession (my something), and meg selv would be used only for emphasis like myself, which doesn’t fit here.

What does men do in this sentence, and does it affect word order?

Men means but and joins two independent clauses:

Hun skulle ringe meg i dag,
men hun ringer i morgen.

In Norwegian, when you use men to connect two main clauses, the word order in the second clause stays normal:

hun ringer i morgen → subject (hun) before verb (ringer).

So men doesn’t change the word order; it just signals a contrast between what was supposed to happen and what will actually happen.

Is the word order Hun skulle ringe meg i dag fixed, or could you move some parts around?

The most natural order is:

Hun skulle ringe meg i dag.

Other versions are possible but usually sound less neutral:

I dag skulle hun ringe meg.
→ Still correct; now i dag (today) is emphasized.
Hun skulle i dag ringe meg.
→ Grammatically possible, but sounds a bit stiff or poetic.

So for everyday speech, Hun skulle ringe meg i dag is the standard and most natural word order.

Why is it i dag and i morgen, and not just dag and morgen?

Norwegian uses the preposition i with many time expressions:

i dag = today
i morgen = tomorrow
i går = yesterday

Without i, dag just means day and morgen just means morning:

en dag = a day
om morgenen = in the morning

So:

i dag is a fixed expression meaning today.
i morgen is a fixed expression meaning tomorrow, not in the morning.

How would the meaning change if I said Hun skulle ringe meg i går, men hun ringer i morgen?

That would mean:

She was supposed to call me *yesterday, but she’s calling tomorrow.*

So:

i går = yesterday.
The structure and tense usage stay the same: skulle for the missed/changed plan, ringer (present) + i morgen for a future call.

It just changes which day she was originally supposed to call.

Is there any difference in politeness or tone compared to English when using skulle like this?

Yes, skulle can soften statements in Norwegian and sometimes sounds less direct. In this sentence:

Hun skulle ringe meg i dag

it mostly expresses an expectation or plan that didn’t happen, rather than blaming her. It’s similar to English She was supposed to call me today—it focuses on the plan, not on accusing her.

So using skulle often sounds a bit milder and more neutral than a direct complaint like She didn’t call me today.