# Norwegian: Den gode nabo -- why not naboen?



## Beekgeek

Hello / Hei,

Beginning Norwegian learner here with a first time post. While visiting Trondheim, went with a colleague to a local pub, "Den Gode Nabo".  Having just figured out how to recognize definite nouns, I was confused by two things at first: 1) what exactly the "den" was achieving, and 2) why nabo wasn't naboen ("the neighbour"). Investigating the first part introduced me to the idea of definite nouns with adjectives and "double definiteness" (i.e. the definite article before the adjective and the -en/-et ending of the noun). All OK until I circled back to the original noun phrase. 

Is there some exception to the rule that would make it "Den gode nabo" not "naboen"?
Is this a local / regional usage issue? Or something else entirely?

Takk!


----------



## raumar

Hello, and welcome to the forum!

Written Norwegian Bokmål was originally almost pure Danish - and Danish does not use double definiteness. But Norwegian Bokmål has developed over time, and double definiteness is the main rule today. In everyday conversations, people use double definiteness, for example "Jeg snakket med den nye *naboen* i går". "Jeg snakket med den nye *nabo*" sounds either Danish or very old-fashioned. 

But -- as you have noticed -- there are some exceptions. The old pattern, without double definiteness, has survived in some set phrases. You can also use the old pattern as a kind of rhetorical device, if you want to give a speech or a text some extra solemnity or gravity. For example, the then Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland coined the phrase "det norske hus". That was a failure - people did not understand what this metaphor was supposed to represent, and he was ridiculed for it. But my point is that "det norske huset" would have been even worse. After all, you understand that "det norske hus" is some kind of symbol, whereas "det norske huset" would just have been an ordinary building. 

Names of institutions is another exception - ranging from cultural intitutions (Den Norske Opera & Ballett) and companies (Det norske oljeselskap) to pubs (Den Gode Nabo, or Den Gamle Major). Some of these names date back to the time before double definiteness became the standard, but others are more recent. Double definiteness would have made such names sound less elegant and more ordinary. 

You'll find more information (in Norwegian) here: 
http://www.ordnett.no/språkverktøy/språkvett.dobbeltbestemte


----------



## Beekgeek

Takk for velkommen. And thanks for the thorough and interesting explanation. Much better than what I got from someone I asked in person ... they said they might write den gode naboen, but could go either way when speaking.  I'm getting some appreciation for the similarities and differences between Danish and Norwegian, so good to know that this one exists too. (I've been using the Danish "Duolingo" app to help with some of my "Nordic" language skills, and trying to check where the Danish and Norwegian veer off from each other ... bit of challenge so far, but I think it's a cool app).

Mvh


----------



## Ben Jamin

Beekgeek said:


> Takk for velkommen. And thanks for the thorough and interesting explanation. Much better than what I got from someone I asked in person ... they said they might write den gode naboen, but could go either way when speaking.  I'm getting some appreciation for the similarities and differences between Danish and Norwegian, so good to know that this one exists too. (I've been using the Danish "Duolingo" app to help with some of my "Nordic" language skills, and trying to check where the Danish and Norwegian veer off from each other ... bit of challenge so far, but I think it's a cool app).
> 
> Mvh


I think that the answer you got from your informant wa also interesting and good. It suggests that people feel that double definition feels formal and wordy, and shun it in colloquial speech.


----------



## raumar

Well, that answer may be interesting, but it looks strange to me. Double definiteness is seen as the less formal option, as you see, for example, in this piece of advice from språkvett.no: Språkvett, Godt språk - ordnett.no



> *Skriv muntlig!*
> Vi kan ikke skrive som vi snakker. Men vi kan bruke godt talemål som mønster og velge muntlige ord og en enkel setningsbygning der det er mulig uten å tape informasjon.
> (...)
> Varier med dobbeltbestemt form av substantiv: Enkeltbestemt form virker mer høytidelig, for eksempel _det glade budskap, den ukjente soldat_. Dobbeltbestemt form virker mer muntlig og hverdagslig:
> 
> *Skriv ikke:*
> Jeg begynte med dette arbeid i fjor.
> NN vil ha sin sak opp på nytt.
> 
> *Skriv heller:*
> Jeg begynte med dette arbeidet i fjor.
> NN vil ha saken sin opp på nytt.



There is, of course, much variation in spoken Norwegian. But I don't really see how anybody would feel that double definiteness is more formal, and I can't think of any dialect that sees this differently. My guess is that the advice mentioned in #3 is based on some kind of misunderstanding. Maybe they meant to say that the "e" in "naboen" usually isn't pronounced. Or maybe - since this was in Trøndelag - they referred to the fact that the last syllable of a word often is dropped in trøndersk.


----------



## Ben Jamin

raumar said:


> Well, that answer may be interesting, but it looks strange to me. Double definiteness is seen as the less formal option, as you see, for example, in this piece of advice from språkvett.no: Språkvett, Godt språk - ordnett.no
> 
> 
> 
> There is, of course, much variation in spoken Norwegian. But I don't really see how anybody would feel that double definiteness is more formal, and I can't think of any dialect that sees this differently. My guess is that the advice mentioned in #3 is based on some kind of misunderstanding. Maybe they meant to say that the "e" in "naboen" usually isn't pronounced. Or maybe - since this was in Trøndelag - they referred to the fact that the last syllable of a word often is dropped in trøndersk.


The Norwegian language is changing with a great speed. New trends rise up every day. Maybe a new trend is coming in this age of SMS texting: " the shorter the better and less formal"?
"Mottatt faktura" is definitely shorter than "den mottatte fakturaen", isn't it. And definiteness can be marked indirectly, but well enough, by the qualifier "mottatt"


----------



## tewlwolow

Surely, the double definiteness is less formal, but only because it's less Danish and more Nynorsk-like. Everything that is dialectal and not derives from riksmål is sometimes looked down upon (sadly). In this particular case, it could be considered "radical" or even "backwaterish" to use overbestemthet when there are some fixed, pre-existing, Danish-derived terms and expressions which do not use it. Norwegian is very "delicate" to details, and one should carefully read the texts and hear the speech of the native speakers in sociolinguistic context, before deciding on one's own register.

Same goes to those other areas of bokmål which are "disputed" between the two main version of Norwegian. You can, for instance, find out that every noun with _-ing_ ending can be feminine in bokmål, but if you wander around Oslo or, generally speaking, Østlandet using "regjeringa", "opplysninga" or "utdanninga", you can be labelled a Vestlander, a peasant, a commie, a physical worker, a hipster folklorist etc... there is lots of these stereotypical associations, and you have to control how you speak and which forms/structures you use, because it grandly affects how you will be received. Kind of similar to speaking hardcore RP in America - you would be considered a tea-drinking royal-snob, even though you are not even a Brit.


----------



## raumar

Welcome to the forum, tewlwolow!



tewlwolow said:


> You can, for instance, find out that every noun with _-ing_ ending can be feminine in bokmål, but if you wander around Oslo or, generally speaking, Østlandet using "regjeringa", "opplysninga" or "utdanninga", you can be labelled a Vestlander, a peasant, a commie, a physical worker, a hipster folklorist etc... there is lots of these stereotypical associations, and you have to control how you speak and which forms/structures you use, because it grandly affects how you will be received.



I'm afraid I can't agree with this. At least, you have to make a distinction between spoken and written Norwegian. In spoken language, I would say that dialects have a generally high status, and that it is completely accepted to speak your own dialect. There are some exceptions - some dialects, especially from some parts of Østlandet, seem to have a lower status than others. 

I live in Oslo and grew up at Østlandet, east of Oslo. I say "regjeringa" and "utdanninga" (but "opplysningen"), and I have never experienced any kind of negative reactions. These forms are very much used in most parts of Østlandet, except for the western parts of Oslo, and most people would never frown upon them. When I write, however, I use "regjeringen" and "utdanningen" (but, for example, "boka" and "sola"). Such a-endings are much less used in written Bokmål than in spoken Norwegian. Using a-endings in written Norwegian is, to a greater extent, a conscious choice - because you have to break with the standard that you learnt at school. Therefore, a-endings in written Norwegians will more often bring about the stereotypical associations that you describe.


----------



## tewlwolow

raumar said:


> Welcome to the forum, tewlwolow!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I can't agree with this. At least, you have to make a distinction between spoken and written Norwegian. In spoken language, I would say that dialects have a generally high status, and that it is completely accepted to speak your own dialect. There are some exceptions - some dialects, especially from some parts of Østlandet, seem to have a lower status than others.
> 
> I live in Oslo and grew up at Østlandet, east of Oslo. I say "regjeringa" and "utdanninga" (but "opplysningen"), and I have never experienced any kind of negative reactions. These forms are very much used in most parts of Østlandet, except for the western parts of Oslo, and most people would never frown upon them. When I write, however, I use "regjeringen" and "utdanningen" (but, for example, "boka" and "sola"). Such a-endings are much less used in written Bokmål than in spoken Norwegian. Using a-endings in written Norwegian is, to a greater extent, a conscious choice - because you have to break with the standard that you learnt at school. Therefore, a-endings in written Norwegians will more often bring about the stereotypical associations that you describe.



Yes, my bad, this of course relates far more to writing than speaking. The fact that dialects are widely used and accepted, though, seems to pertain mostly to "ethnic" Norwegians - foreigners who have just come to Norway would be better off using the (practically nonexistent) "standard" from around Oslo, in order not to sound "fake". Not because stavangersk or trøndersk are not accepted in general, but because the persons in question have *not* grown up in these places. As far as I know, Norwegians are truly proud of their local background (which is great!).

Not so long ago, I participated in a series of lectures about Norwegian dialects and their reception amongst Norwegians, and most of them seem to frown upon using "inappropriate" dialect, which means that you are advised not to "switch" your mother tongue for something else. Should you do so, you would be considered a linguistic "poser", or someone with low self-esteem, or just a sly liar. At least that's what the surveys say... obviosuly, it's less radical when it comes to learners of Norwegian from abroad, but still can possibly spawn problems.

I must say, however, that I constantly break the rules in my writing, trying to use as much "radical" forms as possible (while still remaining true to bokmål), but I am well aware of the possible consequences and I know how to "defend" myself, had I been asked for reasons. That's the final point, I guess - as a foreigner you are socially "allowed" to use whatever forms you want, but you need to be aware of their implications, and you need to use your language consciously.


----------

