1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Norwegian (Bokmål)
  4. >
  5. "Bjørnen lever ute i naturen."

"Bjørnen lever ute i naturen."

Translation:The bear lives outside in nature.

May 25, 2015



Why do you use the definite for nature (naturen rather than natur) here? Would it be incorrect to say "Bjørnen lever ute i natur"?

EDIT: Other people had similar questions in later sentence discussions! Luke's response here was especially helpful for me! :)


This is a blind guess but I wonder if it is similar to the Nederlandse structuring of "[...] in de natuur." --> "[...] in nature."


Your guess is correct. The short answer for this is that articles in English are weird (for a Germanic / European language).

The slightly longer answer is that in the Middle Ages Britain got repeatedly invaded by Scandinavian peoples (these days also known as "Vikings"), by some speaking Norse or German dialects, but a bit later and most notably by the French-speaking "Normans". In the process English changed quite a bit and became increasingly creolised. One effect of this was that gender as a grammatical category lost a lot of its markers (and vanished more and more over time). Of the former three different articles of Old English, "se" (formerly masculine) survived and later changed to "the", while "þæt" (formerly neuter) became "that" and "sēo" (formerly feminine) might have turned into "she". Since this also meant that articles had essentially lost one of their core functions, namely that of marking gender, they somehow also changed in other regards in the process.


with my smartphone i can't see the helpful links like yours. You have an idea what i can do?


I think "The bear lives out in the WILD" is a more natural translation to English.


I don't know how wild nature has to be to be counted as the WILD/the WILDERNESS, but in norwegian there is definitely a difference between naturen og villmarken (though they overlap).

A bear might live "i naturen", but also "i villmarken". But "villmarken" is farther from civilization.


In the wild is now accepted :-)


...or possibly the WILDERNESS


Wild is short for wilderness and has a overlapping but slightly different meaning than nature. It means untouched nature. You only get that deeper out. Villmarken sounds much closer to wilderness based on what kim-gab said. Translating naturen as th wild is just wrong. I don't understand why so many native English speakers especially Americans don't know what words mean.


I have never heard any English speaker, Amerikaner or otherwise say that something lives out in nature. Type "the bear lives out in nature" into Google and see if you find that construction used by anyone.


I'm with you there, I think it should be added. We wouldn't usually use "nature" in this sense, but obviously it's also fine for this translation task.


What's the difference between å leve and å bo?


Leve is to be alive

Bo is to live somewhere or reside somewhere


Any reason why lever is used here? Bor seems more appropriate.


Indeed, I was just corrected on another question for using lever instead of bor, and then this one uses lever to mean reside. This seems inconsistent


Ah, takk skall du ha.


Difference between:

ut and ute?


Ut describes movement, from the inside to the outside.
Ute describes location, that something is or is happening outside.

"Jeg går ut."
"I'm going out(side)."

"Jeg er ute."
"I'm out(side)."


Why is it lever instead of bor? If bor is to reside, and lever is to be alive...unless this sentence is saying "the bear is alive in nature," but it doesn't seem that way to me.


I think the difference lies in the subtlety of meaning, which in English is somewhat obscured because we can use 'to live' in both contexts. The following example should show English has the subtlety although it doesn't necessarily use different words to highlight this difference.

English: I live (am alive)/ (exist) = norsk: Jeg lever. *English: I live (reside, have a house, etc.) = norsk: Jeg bor.

*In both English and norsk the second example given needs to have some kind of qualifying component to make a complete sentence whereas the first does not.


Yeah, I get the difference now. The thing I'm still having trouble with is that this bear both exists in nature (and as part of it), but he also resides there. So in situations like, where both could work, should one just stick with "å leve"?


Yes, I think until you see a pattern that makes sense to you, then use 'å leve' as a first choice. It is possible the following may occur:

Bjørnen lever ute i skogen, men den bor i hula. (The bear lives (exists) outside in the forest, but it lives (resides) in the cave).

I may have written the example incorrectly på norsk, so I apologize for any error.


How do you know the bear is a 'he'?


I don't think you can know that it is a male, even though the article in bjørnen (-en) is masculine. Bjørna would make it female for sure. The -a ending is less used these days, sticking only to a few obviously gendered animals like "kua og oksen".


That's a good point. I was wondering that myself =0


They can't all be a 'he' or there'd be no animals ;-)


Why is "The bear lives outside" incorrect?


The Norwegian sentence has the word "nature"; it specifies that the bear does not live outside in the city streets, for example.


in the nature is not accepted ! but naturen means the nature right?


It does, if you're doing a component-by-component gloss; however, in a good translation it is necessary to fit the rendering of the sentence to the target language. It would be unnatural to say "in the nature" in English, where as "i naturen" is natural in Norwegian. What's important is that the idea (i.e. semantic value) of the statement is communicated.


"in the nature" is unfortunately accepted now.


I translated it as: the bear drives a Ute naturally. Apparently that is wrong


There is no driving in the sentence. And "ute" is not a noun.


Why is "out in the nature" wrong?

[deactivated user]

    Because it is not how we'd say it in English. "Nature" in the sense of the natural world, does not have "the" before it.


    We wouldnt say the bear lives out in nature either though. Someone else suggest "the wilderness" as a better translation


    What is the difference between "bor" and "lever"?


    Would it be incorrect to say "Bjørnen lever i naturen"?


    What is the difference between "lever" and "bor"?

    Learn Norwegian (Bokmål) in just 5 minutes a day. For free.