# Norwegian: Nedenfor vs under /ovenfor vs over



## sjiraff

Hi everyone,

Just wondering what exactly the difference is, between "nedenfor" and "under", and "ovenfo"r and "over". Is it to do with being directly under or on top? I'm kind of unsure!

Thanks!


----------



## myšlenka

It's just like English under/below, over/above.


----------



## sjiraff

myšlenka said:


> It's just like English under/below, over/above.



Is it ever wrong to use one or the other though?

The reason I asked is because, I wrote a sentence to someone and said "Jeg måtte klatre ned og feste ull nedenfor huset" and he said I should say "under" instead!

Thanks

<< Moderator's note: The related discussion of 'feste ull' now has its own thread: 
Nowegian:  Feste <ull? / glassfiber?>>


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> Is it ever wrong to use one or the other though?
> 
> The reason I asked is because, I wrote a sentence to someone and said "Jeg måtte klatre ned og feste ull nedenfor huset" and he said I should say "under" instead!



<< See other thread. >>

Well, they don't denote the same location in this case. _Under huset_ would be physically under the house whereas _nedenfor huset_ would be somewhere next to the house but downwards (if there is a hill).


----------



## sjiraff

<< ----. >>



myšlenka said:


> Well, they don't denote the same location in this case. _Under huset_ would be physically under the house whereas _nedenfor huset_ would be somewhere next to the house but downwards (if there is a hill).



Ahh I see, so it's maybe like "at the bottom of" or "at the foot of".

Thanks a lot!


----------



## myšlenka

sjiraff said:


> << ---. >>
> 
> Ahh I see, so it's maybe like "at the bottom of" or "at the foot of".



<< See other thread. >>

I think you would just say "below the house".


----------



## sjiraff

myšlenka said:


> << --- >>
> I think you would just say "below the house".


<< --- >>

But thanks, I should be able to use under and nedenfor more clearly now.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

<< --- >>
To elaborate on myslenka's great answer: _Under_ and _over_ are physical locations. _Nedenfor_ and _ovenfor_ are relative locations. They do not exist in themselves, but only in relation to another object.


----------



## Ben Jamin

NorwegianNYC said:


> << --- >>
> To elaborate on myslenka's great answer: _Under_ and _over_ are physical locations. _Nedenfor_ and _ovenfor_ are relative locations. They do not exist in themselves, but only in relation to another object.


Both *Under *and *Over *must* relate to something *and therefore are both relative concepts. You have to mention the relation point in the sentence.
*Nedenfor *and *Ovenfor *are also relative, but you don't have to mention the relation point in the sentence, as they relate to the point you are standing at or pointing to (usually in the text).


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Ben Jamin said:


> Both *Under *and *Over *must* relate to something *and therefore are both relative concepts. You have to mention the relation point in the sentence.
> *Nedenfor *and *Ovenfor *are also relative, but you don't have to mention the relation point in the sentence, as they relate to the point you are standing at or pointing to (usually in the text).


Of course. But my point was that _over_ and _under_ exists in themselves i relation to an object. _Nedenfor_ and _ovenfor_ is relative to the intended meaning of the statement. _Under huset_ must mean a location physically under the house. Nedenfor huset does not have to mean directly underneath (but it can), it can also be in front or to the side.


----------



## Ben Jamin

NorwegianNYC said:


> Of course. But my point was that _over_ and _under_ exists in themselves i relation to an object. _Nedenfor_ and _ovenfor_ is relative to the intended meaning of the statement. _Under huset_ must mean a location physically under the house. Nedenfor huset does not have to mean directly underneath (but it can), it can also be in front or to the side.


I think that another explanation is maybe better:

*Nedenfor *and *ovenfor *refer to the height position of an object, related to another object or a coordinate, while *over *and *under *refer to objects positioned vertically _above _or _underneath _another object.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

Ben Jamin said:


> I think that another explanation is maybe better:
> 
> *Nedenfor *and *ovenfor *refer to the height position of an object, related to another object or a coordinate, while *over *and *under *refer to objects positioned vertically _above _or _underneath _another object.


Makes sense


----------

