Han svarer usikkert, men jeg stoler på ham.

He answers uncertainly, but I trust him.

Breakdown of Han svarer usikkert, men jeg stoler på ham.

• jeg: I
• han: he
• men: but
• ham: him
• svare: to answer
• stole på: to trust
• usikker: unsure

Questions & Answers about Han svarer usikkert, men jeg stoler på ham.

Why is it svarer and not something like svarar or svar?

Svarer is the present tense of the verb å svare (to answer). In Bokmål, many verbs form the present with -er:

• å svare → svarer
• å stole → stoler

Svar is the imperative (Answer!) or a noun (an answer), depending on context.

Why does usikkert end in -t? Isn’t the adjective usikker?

Yes, the adjective is usikker (uncertain/insecure). Here it’s used as an adverb describing how he answers, and Norwegian often forms that adverb with -t:

• Han er usikker. = He is uncertain. (adjective, describes he)
• Han svarer usikkert. = He answers uncertainly. (adverb, describes answers)

Could you also say Han svarer usikker?

In standard written Bokmål, Han svarer usikkert is the normal form.
You may hear Han svarer usikker in speech/dialects, but in writing it’s generally treated as non-standard or informal compared to the -t adverb form.

What does svarer mean here—does it need an object (like “answer a question”)?

Norwegian can use å svare without stating what is being answered, if it’s understood from context:

• Han svarer. = He answers / He responds.
• Han svarer usikkert. = He responds in an uncertain way.

If you want to add what he answers, you can:

• Han svarer på spørsmålet. = He answers the question.
• Han svarer meg. = He answers me. (possible, but svare på
  • thing/question is very common)

Why is it men jeg stoler på ham and not men stoler jeg på ham?

After men (but), Norwegian usually keeps normal word order (subject before verb):

• ..., men jeg stoler på ham.

You can invert for emphasis or style, but then you’d typically front something (and keep the V2 rule):

• ..., men på ham stoler jeg. = ...but him I trust. (emphasis) Plain men stoler jeg på ham is unusual unless something is understood/omitted or you’re doing a marked, literary style.

Why is it på ham? Why does stole need på?

In Norwegian the verb is å stole på = to trust / rely on (it’s a fixed verb + preposition combination). So you say:

• Jeg stoler på ham. = I trust him.

Without på, å stole usually means to steal in modern Norwegian:

• Han stjeler / han har stjålet. = He steals / has stolen. But stole as “steal” is not the normal verb; it’s typically stjele.

Why is it ham and not han?

Han = he (subject form)
Ham = him (object form)

Since the pronoun comes after the preposition på, it’s treated like an object:

• på ham = on him / of him → him

In many spoken varieties, people often say på han, but på ham is the standard written Bokmål form.

Is ham formal or old-fashioned?

Not formal—just standard written Bokmål.
What can feel “less formal” (or more colloquial) in many places is using han as an object:

• spoken: Jeg stoler på han.
• standard writing: Jeg stoler på ham.

Why is there a comma before men?

Because men connects two independent clauses (each has its own subject and verb):

• Han svarer usikkert, (clause 1)
• men jeg stoler på ham. (clause 2)

In Norwegian (and English), you normally use a comma in that situation.

How do you pronounce key parts: svarer, usikkert, stoler på, ham?

A practical approximation (varies by dialect):

• svarer: roughly SVAH-rer (two syllables; sv like in sv in some Scandinavian loans, but many learners use “sv” as in English sv cluster)
• usikkert: roughly OO-sih-kert (final -t often not strongly released)
• stoler på: roughly STOO-ler poh (the å in på is like an “aw/oh” sound depending on dialect)
• ham: roughly hahm (often short and unstressed in a sentence)