# Norwegian: Nær(t)(e)



## sjiraff

Hi everyone

As the title says, I made this thread about the word "nær" and how it should be conjugated. I know in some cases you say "Det var nære på!" and "nær forestående" which might seem a bit inconsistant for a foreigner, but now I am a bit more confused.

I was watching something with subtitles, and the man said

"Må de kommer helt nær*t*?!" where as the subtitle said "Må de kommer helt næ*r*".    

I'm wondering what exactly would be the most correct, I would've thought either "nært" or "nær*e*" since nært could mean "closely" (But then, it would seem kind of odd after helt?) and "nære" since it's plural with DE. 

Is one more correct than the others?

Thanks!


----------



## Ben Jamin

There use of this word(s) is rather chaotic in modern spoken Norwegian, and you can find many variants, the most popular in Østlandet being the rather ungrammatical "nærme" (maybe a back formation of "nærmere" og "fornærme"?). 

The "old fashioned grammatically correct" was:

adjective:
singular: indef. nær, nært, def. nære
plural: nære (both indef and def.)
comparison  indef. nærmere, nærmest, def. den/det nærmeste

adverb: nært
comparison  nærmere, nærmest


----------



## sjiraff

Ben Jamin said:


> There use of this word(s) is rather chaotic in modern spoken Norwegian, and you can find many variants, the most popular in Østlandet being the rather ungrammatical "nærme" (maybe a back formation of "nærmere" og "fornærme"?).
> 
> The "old fashioned grammatically correct" was:
> 
> adjective:
> singular: indef. nær, nært, def. nære
> plural: nære (both indef and def.)
> comparison  indef. nærmere, nærmest, def. den/det nærmeste
> 
> adverb: nært
> comparison  nærmere, nærmest



Thanks, which one do you think is correct in the example I gave though?


----------



## Ben Jamin

sjiraff said:


> Thanks, which one do you think is correct in the example I gave though?



It is an adverb, so it must be *nært*, but the subtitle author disregards it, or doesn't know it, or doesn't care to proofread.


----------



## sjiraff

Ben Jamin said:


> It is an adverb, so it must be *nært*, but the subtitle author disregards it, or doesn't know it, or doesn't care to proofread.



Thanks Ben Jamin

The reason I considered it might be "nære" too, is because sometimes you say for example "Han sto taus" or "De sto tause" - so like, "must you come close" vs "must you come closely".


----------



## Ben Jamin

sjiraff said:


> Thanks Ben Jamin
> 
> The reason I considered it might be "nære" too, is because sometimes you say for example "Han sto taus" or "De sto tause" - so like, "must you come close" vs "must you come closely".


Taus in your example is an adjective, it relates to han and de, and must agree with number. Nært is an adverb, and relates to "komme". Beside it is not "må kommer" but "må komme".


----------



## raumar

Yes, it is an abverb, but this is a bit more complicated. The correct adverb seems to be "nær" (and in some cases "nære"), but not "nært". See, for example, Bokmålsordboka:
http://www.nob-ordbok.uio.no/perl/ordbok.cgi?OPP=nær&bokmaal=+&ordbok=bokmaal

According to this link, the only exception is "samarbeide nært": 
http://www.godtsprak.no/adverbet-naer/

Sjiraff, you have already noted this use (your examples "nær forestående" and "nære på"). But this was completely new to me, until I checked the dictionary. For example, I would never say or write "være nær knyttet til noen", as the dictionary recommends, but "nært knyttet". Apparently Ben Jamin also does that, and -- I suppose -- many other Norwegians.


----------



## Ben Jamin

raumar said:


> Yes, it is an abverb, but this is a bit more complicated. The correct adverb seems to be "nær" (and in some cases "nære"), but not "nært". See, for example, Bokmålsordboka:
> http://www.nob-ordbok.uio.no/perl/ordbok.cgi?OPP=nær&bokmaal=+&ordbok=bokmaal
> 
> According to this link, the only exception is "samarbeide nært":
> http://www.godtsprak.no/adverbet-naer/


What about "nært forestående" (157 000 at Google), "farlig nært" (11400), "ikke for nært" (36 400).


----------



## raumar

Of course, there is often a mismatch between what dictionaries prescribe and what people actually say and write. But this mismatch may be greater in this case than in others. You are right, "nært forestående" is used by many people. Intuitively, it does not sound wrong to me.


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> Yes, it is an abverb, but this is a bit more complicated. The correct adverb seems to be "nær" (and in some cases "nære"), but not "nært". See, for example, Bokmålsordboka:
> http://www.nob-ordbok.uio.no/perl/ordbok.cgi?OPP=nær&bokmaal=+&ordbok=bokmaal
> 
> According to this link, the only exception is "samarbeide nært":
> http://www.godtsprak.no/adverbet-naer/
> 
> Sjiraff, you have already noted this use (your examples "nær forestående" and "nære på"). But this was completely new to me, until I checked the dictionary. For example, I would never say or write "være nær knyttet til noen", as the dictionary recommends, but "nært knyttet". Apparently Ben Jamin also does that, and -- I suppose -- many other Norwegians.



Hmm I see, I was trying to think in English which sounded more right "close" or "closely" but I guess we also mix adjectives and adverbs "they came quick" or "they came quickly".

I think I've been on godtspråk before, it's quite useful. Cheers



Ben Jamin said:


> What about "nært forestående" (157 000 at Google), "farlig nært" (11400), "ikke for nært" (36 400).



With "farlig nært" wouldn't it depend on what is being spoken about? If a car is dangerously close, I would have thought "bilen står farlig nær..." since it's describing the car as "being close" not "doing something closely"?


----------



## Ben Jamin

raumar said:


> Yes, it is an abverb, but this is a bit more complicated. The correct adverb seems to be "nær" (and in some cases "nære"), but not "nært". See, for example, Bokmålsordboka:
> http://www.nob-ordbok.uio.no/perl/ordbok.cgi?OPP=nær&bokmaal=+&ordbok=bokmaal
> 
> According to this link, the only exception is "samarbeide nært":
> http://www.godtsprak.no/adverbet-naer/
> 
> Sjiraff, you have already noted this use (your examples "nær forestående" and "nære på"). But this was completely new to me, until I checked the dictionary. For example, I would never say or write "være nær knyttet til noen", as the dictionary recommends, but "nært knyttet". Apparently Ben Jamin also does that, and -- I suppose -- many other Norwegians.


I must admit that I lived with the false belief that "nært" was the main form of the adverb, and all other forms were "sideformer". However, the decision of Språkrådet to allow the use *only in one phrase *looks strange, compared to the mulltitude of allowed "side forms" in other linguistic cases. Why so restrictive here with all the liberty elsewhere?


----------



## sjiraff

Sorry for the bump but I am starting to get kind of confused here,

How does nære and nært work? I read someone say "dette må jo ligge _nære _*stedsnavn*"

I think I have got my wires crossed several times with nær(t)(e), is "nære" in the sentence above an adverb?

Thanks :^)


----------



## raumar

Sjiraff, maybe you shouldn't try too hard to get this right. 

As Ben Jamin wrote in an earlier post:



Ben Jamin said:


> The use of this word(s) is rather chaotic in modern spoken Norwegian, and you can find many variants.



In addition to that, our discussion above has shown that the dictionary seems to be out of touch with what people actually say.

In your example, "dette må jo ligge _nære_ *stedsnavn*", you may hear people say either _nær_, _nært_, _nære_ or _nærme_. _Nære_ is probably incorrect in standard written Norwegian in this case -- but it will be natural in many dialects.


----------



## sjiraff

raumar said:


> Sjiraff, maybe you shouldn't try too hard to get this right.
> 
> As Ben Jamin wrote in an earlier post:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to that, our discussion above has shown that the dictionary seems to be out of touch with what people actually say.
> 
> In your example, "dette må jo ligge _nære_ *stedsnavn*", you may hear people say either _nær_, _nært_, _nære_ or _nærme_. _Nære_ is probably incorrect in standard written Norwegian in this case -- but it will be natural in many dialects.



Ahh I see, I suppose the important thing is knowing the ones which do tend to use a specific version (Like "det var nære på!" and nært forestående) 

I think in that example I would have just said "i nærheten" anyway, but I suppose you can't always say that for everything.

Thanks for letting me know though, at times I was worrying if there was something I fundamentally overlooked


----------

