Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Ved havet sitter bestefar på en gammel brygge og ser på bølgene. - By the sea Grandpa sits on an old pier and looks at the waves.

The finite verb must be in the second position in the sentence.
The first position can be the subject, an adverb, or a prepositional phrase.

In the sentence:

Ved havet = first element (a place phrase)
sitter = second element (the verb)
bestefar = third element (the subject)

So Ved havet sitter bestefar is correct.

Ved havet bestefar sitter breaks the V2 rule, because the verb is no longer in second position, so it is ungrammatical in standard Norwegian.

You can also say Bestefar sitter ved havet, where:

Bestefar (subject) is first
sitter (verb) is second
ved havet (place phrase) comes later

This also respects V2.

Can I also say Bestefar sitter ved havet på en gammel brygge? Does the meaning change?

Yes, that sentence is correct too:

Bestefar sitter ved havet på en gammel brygge.

The basic meaning (where Grandpa is and what he is doing) is the same, but the emphasis changes slightly:

Ved havet sitter bestefar på en gammel brygge
– Starts with ved havet, so it strongly emphasizes the location by the sea.
Bestefar sitter ved havet på en gammel brygge
– Starts with bestefar, which is a more neutral word order focusing first on the person.

Both versions are natural; which one you choose depends on what you want to highlight first.

Why is there no article before bestefar? Why not bestefaren?

Kinship words like mamma, pappa, bestefar, farmor often behave like names when you talk about your own family:

Bestefar sitter ved havet.
≈ “Grandpa is sitting by the sea.”

Here bestefar works like John or Mary; you normally do not add an article when using it as a “name”.

You can use the definite form bestefaren in other situations:

Bestefaren sitter ved havet.
= “The grandfather is sitting by the sea.”
This sounds more like you are talking about some specific grandfather, not necessarily your own, and more as a role than a nickname.

You can also combine with a possessive:

Bestefaren min sitter ved havet.
Min bestefar sitter ved havet.

So:

No article (bestefar) = like a proper name, usually your own grandpa.
Definite form (bestefaren) = “the grandfather”, more general or descriptive.

What is the difference between ved havet, på havet, and i havet?

These three prepositions change the mental picture:

ved havet
= by the sea, next to the sea (on land, close to the shoreline).
This fits the sentence: Grandpa is on a pier at the shore.
på havet
= out at sea, usually out on a boat or ship, away from land.
Example: Fiskerne er på havet. – “The fishermen are out at sea.”
i havet
= in the sea, actually in the water.
Example: De svømmer i havet. – “They are swimming in the sea.”

So ved havet is the correct choice when someone is on land right next to the sea.

Why is it havet and not just hav in ved havet?

Norwegian uses the definite form very often with natural things like havet, skogen, fjellene when you mean “the sea”, “the forest”, “the mountains” in a concrete or familiar way.

hav = sea, ocean (more bare and abstract, often used in compounds or fixed expressions)
havet = the sea (as a real, concrete thing you can stand by or look at)

In this sentence, Grandpa is at a specific sea, visible and real, so ved havet is natural.

Some patterns:

på fjellet – in the mountains / up in the mountains
i skogen – in the forest
ved havet – by the sea

Using the definite form here feels normal and idiomatic to Norwegians.

In på en gammel brygge, why is brygge treated as masculine (en brygge) and not feminine (ei brygge)?

In Bokmål, many nouns can be either feminine or masculine, and brygge is one of them.

You can say:

en brygge – bryggen – brygger – bryggene (masculine pattern)
ei brygge – brygga – brygger – bryggene (feminine pattern)

Both are correct Bokmål. Many textbooks and formal styles prefer the masculine pattern as a default, so they write en brygge.

In everyday speech you will also hear:

ei brygge, especially in dialects and among speakers who like to keep feminine forms.

So på en gammel brygge uses the masculine article en, but på ei gammel brygge would also be accepted in Bokmål.

Why is the adjective gammel and not gamle in en gammel brygge?

Adjectives in Norwegian change form depending on gender, number, and definiteness.

For gammel:

Indefinite singular:
- en gammel brygge (masc.)
- ei gammel brygge (fem.)
- et gammelt hus (neuter)
Definite singular and all plurals:
- den gamle brygga / den gamle bryggen (the old pier)
- de gamle bryggene (the old piers)
- det gamle huset (the old house)
- gamle hus (old houses)

So in en gammel brygge:

Indefinite
Singular
Masculine (or feminine treated as masculine)

That combination takes the base form gammel, not gamle.

Why do we say ser på bølgene and not just ser bølgene?

Norwegian distinguishes between:

å se på noe = to look at / watch something (an intentional action)
å se noe = to see something (it comes into your field of vision, you notice it)

In the sentence, Grandpa is deliberately watching the waves, so ser på bølgene is used.

Compare:

Bestefar ser på bølgene.
– He is watching the waves.
Bestefar ser bølgene.
– He can see the waves; they are visible to him.
(This can be correct in other contexts, but it doesn’t automatically mean he is sitting and watching them in a focused way.)

So ser på is the natural choice here for “looking at” or “watching” the waves.

What does the ending -ene in bølgene mean?

The ending -ene marks plural definite for most masculine and feminine nouns.

The noun bølge (wave) is declined like this:

en bølge – a wave (indefinite singular)
bølgen – the wave (definite singular)
bølger – waves (indefinite plural)
bølgene – the waves (definite plural)

So bølgene means “the waves”.

Norwegian often uses the definite form where English also uses the, especially when it is clear which waves we are talking about (the waves right there at the sea).

Could we say og ser på bølger without -ne? How would that sound?

Yes, og ser på bølger is grammatically correct, but the nuance changes:

ser på bølgene = watching the waves (specific waves in front of him)
ser på bølger = watching waves in general, more generic or less anchored to a particular set of waves

In the given scene (Grandpa on a pier by the sea), Norwegians naturally think of those particular waves he sees there, so bølgene feels more concrete and is more idiomatic.

Using bølger would not be wrong, but it sounds a bit more general or abstract.

Norwegian uses simple present sitter and ser here, but in English we say “is sitting” and “is watching”. Is there a special continuous tense in Norwegian?

Norwegian does not have a separate continuous tense like English is sitting, was watching.

Instead, the simple present is used for both:

ongoing actions (right now)
repeated/habitual actions

So:

Bestefar sitter på en gammel brygge og ser på bølgene.
= “Grandpa is sitting on an old pier and is watching the waves.”

You can add some constructions to highlight that something is happening right now, e.g.:

Bestefar sitter og ser på bølgene.
(literally: “Grandpa sits and looks at the waves”) – very natural for an ongoing action.

There is also holder på å (is in the process of), but you would not use it here:

Bestefar holder på å se på bølgene sounds strange.

So in most cases, just using the simple present, like sitter and ser, already covers the English continuous meaning.

In sitter bestefar på en gammel brygge og ser på bølgene, why don’t we repeat the subject before ser (why not og bestefar ser på bølgene)?

When two verbs share the same subject, Norwegian normally mentions the subject only once:

Bestefar sitter på en gammel brygge og ser på bølgene.
– One subject (bestefar) doing two actions (sitter, ser).

Repeating the subject:

Bestefar sitter på en gammel brygge, og bestefar ser på bølgene.

is grammatically correct but sounds heavy and unnatural unless you want a special effect, for example strong contrast, emphasis, or clear rhythmic repetition.

So the natural pattern is:

[subject] + [verb 1] … og [verb 2] …

with the subject understood for both verbs.