# Norwegian: får + perfektum partisipp



## Oddrun

Hei, 
i dag fikk jeg øye på en slik setning: "*Jeg får sett familien min ofte.*" Er dette korrekt? Skulle det ikke stå "Jeg får se familien min ofte."?

Google gir meg også følgene eksempler:
_Hvordan *får *jeg *se* på 3D-filmer?"
 Hvordan *får* jeg* se* et dokument fra kommunens arkiv?
Hvordan *får* jeg *sett *Brann i dag?
Hvordan *får* jeg *sett* NRK sine distriktssendinger via kabeltv deres?

_Er begge former korrekte? Er meningen den samme?


----------



## myšlenka

Hei,
få + perfektum partisipp uttrykker oppnåelse.

Få + infinitiv uttrykker mulighet eller tillatelse.


----------



## Oddrun

Tusen takk, myšlenka!


----------



## Ben Jamin

myšlenka said:


> Hei,
> få + perfektum partisipp uttrykker oppnåelse.
> 
> Få + infinitiv uttrykker mulighet eller tillatelse.



How old is the construction "få + perfektum partisipp". I have the impression that this came into use not so long time ago, at least couldn't be seen in print.
In earlier times the perfective form was expressed by the verb "få" in preterite: "Jeg fikk se".
The only use of this construction was "Jeg får ikke gjort noe".


----------



## mosletha

Jeg vet at på islandsk bruker man verbet "að geta", som alltid styrer perfektum partisipp, og når det gjelder tillatelse bruker man verbet "að mega", som derimot styrer infinitiv. 

_ Jeg får sett -> Ég get séð 
Jeg får se -> Ég má sjá_

Jeg vil tro at disse konstruksjonene har felles rot i norrønt, men jeg er uheldigvis ikke sikker.


----------



## myšlenka

Ben Jamin said:


> In earlier times the perfective form was expressed by the verb "få" in preterite: "Jeg fikk se".


 Ah yes, I forgot about that meaning. It only works with certain verbs though.


Ben Jamin said:


> How old is the construction "få + perfektum partisipp". I have the impression that this came into use not so long time ago, at least couldn't be seen in print.


 I don't know how old it is, but it seems that Swedish and Danish have the same construction. If mosletha's Icelandic example (#5) is a semantic parallel, this could suggest that the constructions stems from Old Norse (or even earlier). The fact that different word orders (SVO versus SOV) gives different interpretations points in the same direction*:

1) Jeg fikk bilen reparert.
2) Jeg fikk reparert bilen.

The word order in 1) is generally not possible in Modern Norwegian so it could be a relict from the past. This is however, mere speculation from my side 

*Proto-Germanic is believed to have been an SOV language.


----------



## littlepond

myšlenka said:


> 1) Jeg fikk bilen reparert.
> 2) Jeg fikk reparert bilen.
> 
> The word order in 1) is generally not possible in Modern Norwegian so it could be a relict from the past. This is however, mere speculation from my side



Hei! Reviving this old thread. What are the 2 different interpretations? Don't they both mean "I could get the car repaired"? Thanks in advance!


----------



## myšlenka

littlepond said:


> Hei! Reviving this old thread. What are the 2 different interpretations? Don't they both mean "I could get the car repaired"? Thanks in advance!


Well, like I stated in post #6 (more than three years ago... time flies), they don't mean the same thing.

1) _Jeg fikk bilen reparert_ - this is a passive construction, "I had the car repaired (by someone)."
2) _Jeg fikk reparert bilen_ - this expresses an achievement, but not sure how to render this meaning in English.


----------



## winenous

myšlenka said:


> 2) _Jeg fikk reparert bilen_ - this expresses an achievement, but not sure how to render this meaning in English.


I think it would be: _I managed to repair the car_


----------



## Ben Jamin

Oddrun said:


> Hei,
> i dag fikk jeg øye på en slik setning: "*Jeg får sett familien min ofte.*" Er dette korrekt? Skulle det ikke stå "Jeg får se familien min ofte."?


Jeg ville si "Jeg får se familien min ofte".


----------



## littlepond

Thanks everyone!


----------

