Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Bestefar sier at han skulle ønske barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten. - Grandpa says that he wishes the grandchildren could always live nearby.

Main clause
- Bestefar sier – Bestefar is the subject, sier (says) is the verb.
Content clause (what he says) introduced by at
- at han skulle ønske barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten
- Here han (he) refers back to Bestefar, and skulle ønske is the main verb phrase of this clause.
Wish clause (what he wishes)
- barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten
- barnebarna (the grandchildren) is the subject of kunne bo (could live).

So the “skeleton” is:

Bestefar sier
- (at) han skulle ønske
  - (at) barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten

In sier at, what does at do, and can I leave it out like English “says (that)…”?

at is a subordinating conjunction meaning that (introducing reported speech or a content clause).

Bestefar sier at han skulle ønske …
= Grandpa says that he wishes …

In Norwegian, at can often be omitted in everyday speech and informal writing after verbs like si, tro, mene, vite:

Bestefar sier (at) han skulle ønske barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten.

Both versions are generally accepted. In more formal or careful writing, people tend to keep at.

What does skulle ønske literally mean, and why is it used here?

Literally, skulle ønske is “should wish” (preterite of skal + ønske).

Functionally, it’s an idiomatic expression used to talk about unreal / hypothetical wishes or regrets, very close to English “I wish …”:

Jeg skulle ønske jeg var rik.
I wish I were rich.
Han skulle ønske barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten.
He wishes his grandchildren could always live nearby.

So you don’t read it as a real “should” here; you memorize skulle ønske as a fixed “I wish / he wishes” pattern for things that are not actually true (but desired).

If skulle is past tense of skal, and kunne is past tense of kan, why is the sentence about a present/future wish?

This is the modal preterite in Norwegian: using past forms of modal verbs (skulle, kunne, ville, måtte) to express:

Unreality / hypotheticals
Softened, polite meaning

In the sentence:

skulle ønske = “(I/he) wish/ed” about something unreal
kunne bo = “could live” (ability/possibility that does not actually exist)

Compare:

Han sier at barnebarna kan bo i nærheten.
He says the grandchildren can live nearby. (real possibility)

vs.

Han sier at han skulle ønske barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten.
He says he wishes the grandchildren could always live nearby.
(But in reality, they don’t always live nearby.)

So the preterite forms here mark “not real, but imagined / wished for.”

What is the difference between skulle ønske and just ønsker?

ønsker is the ordinary present-tense verb to wish / to want:

Jeg ønsker deg en god dag.
I wish you a good day. (real, straightforward)
Han ønsker seg en ny bil.
He wants a new car for himself.

skulle ønske expresses a more unreal, regretful, or impossible wish:

Jeg skulle ønske jeg bodde nærmere.
I wish I lived closer. (But I don’t.)

In your sentence, skulle ønske fits because grandpa is talking about something he wishes were true but isn’t. If you said:

Bestefar sier at han ønsker barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten,

it would sound off: ønsker doesn’t by itself carry the hypothetical/regret idea; you’d normally pair it with an infinitive noun phrase (ønsker å reise) or with at + indicative for a more neutral wish.

Why do we say barnebarna alltid kunne bo and not barnebarna kunne alltid bo?

This is about word order in subordinate clauses.

In a main clause the typical pattern is:

Subject – finite verb – sentence adverb – rest

For example:

Barnebarna kan alltid bo i nærheten.
The grandchildren can always live nearby.

In a subordinate clause introduced (explicitly or implicitly) by at, the pattern changes to:

(at) – Subject – sentence adverb – finite verb – rest

So we get:

at barnebarna alltid kan bo i nærheten
With preterite: at barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten

In your sentence the at before this inner clause is omitted, but it still behaves like a subordinate clause:

… at han skulle ønske [ (at) barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten ].

Using barnebarna kunne alltid bo inside a subordinate clause is non‑standard; it sounds like you’re mixing main‑clause and subordinate‑clause word order.

Why is it barnebarna and not something like barnebarnene?

barnebarn (grandchild) is a neuter noun whose plural forms are invariable in the bare plural, but the definite plural is irregular:

et barnebarn – a grandchild
barnebarn – grandchildren (indefinite plural, same form)
barnebarna – the grandchildren (definite plural)

So barnebarna here means “the grandchildren” (specific, his own grandchildren).

There is no form barnebarnene in standard Bokmål; the correct definite plural is barnebarna.

Who is actually the subject of kunne bo – han or barnebarna?

The subject of kunne bo is barnebarna.

Breaking it down:

han skulle ønske …
– han is subject of skulle (ønske).
barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten
– barnebarna is subject of kunne (could) and performs the action bo (live).

So grammatically:

han wishes something about barnebarna.
barnebarna are the ones who (could) live nearby.

Why isn’t it han skulle ønske seg at barnebarna…? What’s the difference between ønske and ønske seg?

ønske seg is a reflexive construction: “to want something for oneself” (often a gift, an object, or an experience):

Han ønsker seg en ny sykkel.
He wants a new bike (for himself).

skulle ønske in the sense of “I/he wish(es)…” is not normally used with seg:

✔ Han skulle ønske barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten.
✖ Han skulle ønske seg barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten. (unidiomatic here)

So keep:

ønske seg noe = want something for oneself
(jeg/han) skulle ønske (at) … = wish that something were different from reality

Why is it i nærheten and not just nær or nærme?

i nærheten is a very common fixed expression meaning “nearby / in the vicinity”.

bo i nærheten – live nearby / live close (by)

Some contrasts:

nær
- As a preposition: bo nær byen – live near the city
- As an adjective: et nær sted – a nearby place (less common than nært sted)
nært
- Adverb form: bo nært – live close (by).
i nærheten (av X)
- bo i nærheten av byen – live in the vicinity of the city / live near the city.
- If you drop av X, it just means “nearby (here/there)”, with the reference understood from context.

In your sentence i nærheten works like “nearby (to where he lives / to the family)” without needing to say av ham / av oss explicitly; Norwegian often leaves that implicit.

Could we also say Bestefar sier at han skulle ønske at barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten? Is the second at allowed?

Yes, that is also possible:

Bestefar sier at han skulle ønske at barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten.

Here, the inner clause is explicitly introduced by at:

(at) barnebarna alltid kunne bo i nærheten

With verbs like ønske, håpe, tro, mene, Norwegian often allows both:

Jeg skulle ønske jeg var der.
Jeg skulle ønske at jeg var der.

Including the second at can feel a bit more formal or explicit; leaving it out is also very natural, especially in speech. Both versions are grammatically correct.