Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Vi må passe på barna i hagen. - We must look after the children in the garden.

Vi må passe på barna i hagen.
→ We have to look after the children in the garden.
(You could also say We must watch the children in the garden.)

Note:

Norwegian må covers a range from must to have to to need to, depending on context and tone.
It is followed by an infinitive verb (passe here), just as English modals are followed by a bare infinitive (must watch, have to look after).

Why is it passe på and not just passe? What does på add?

Passe på is a fixed verb expression meaning take care of, watch, look after, keep an eye on.

å passe på noen/noe → to watch / look after someone/something
å passe noen/noe (without på) often means broadly to mind / care for, but passe på is the more common natural phrase when you mean keep an eye on or make sure nothing happens to.

Nuance examples:

Kan du passe på barna?
→ Can you look after / watch the children?
Han passer barna i kveld.
→ He is babysitting the children tonight. (More about the role of caring for them, not just watching them for a moment.)

In this sentence, passe på emphasizes active watching and care so nothing bad happens while they are in the garden.

Does på go with passe or with barna? Could it mean on the children?

Here, på is tightly connected to the verb passe as part of the expression passe på. It does not mean on the children.

Structure:

passe på barna = look after the children
Not:
passe barna på (which would be ungrammatical in this sense)

So you should treat passe på as one unit:

passe på + object (barna)

What is the difference between barn, barna, and barna i hagen?

barn = child (singular) or children (plural) in the indefinite form.
- et barn = a child
- barn = children (no article, general)
barna = the children, definite plural.
- barna = the children
barna i hagen = the children in the garden
- i hagen specifies which children (the ones that are in the garden).

So Vi må passe på barna i hagen implies a specific group of children that are already known in the context, and they are in the garden.

Why is it i hagen and not på hagen? What is the difference between i and på?

Both i and på can mean in, but they are used differently.

i hagen = in the garden, inside the area of the garden
- i usually means in / inside a place or area.
på hagen would normally sound wrong for physical location of people.
- på is often used for on, on top of, or at places like på skolen (at school), på jobb (at work), på kino (at the cinema), på fjellet (in/at the mountains), etc.

For a regular garden as a physical area you’re inside, you almost always say i hagen.
So:

Barna er i hagen.
→ The children are in the garden.

What is the function of i hagen in the sentence? Does it modify passe på or barna?

Grammatically, i hagen is a prepositional phrase that tells you where the children are. Functionally, it modifies the noun phrase barna:

barna i hagen = the children who are in the garden

Semantically, it also affects the whole situation (we must watch the children while they are in the garden), but structurally you can think of it as specifying which children you’re talking about.

Why is it hagen and not hage? How is the definite form made here?

Norwegian usually marks definiteness with an ending on the noun.

en hage = a garden (indefinite singular)
hagen = the garden (definite singular)

Pattern:

Masculine noun hage → hagen in the definite form.

In i hagen, the definite form hagen is used because we are talking about a specific, known garden (not just any random garden).

Can the word order change, like Vi må i hagen passe på barna?

In normal, natural Norwegian, you would not say Vi må i hagen passe på barna in this context. The neutral, most natural order is:

Vi må passe på barna i hagen.

Other acceptable variants (with subtle focus changes) include:

I hagen må vi passe på barna.
→ In the garden, we have to watch the children. (emphasis on the location)

But splitting passe på barna with i hagen in the middle in that way is not normal word order. Keep passe på right before its object barna and put i hagen after.

Is må conjugated? What would it look like in past tense?

Modal verbs like må are very simple in Norwegian; they don’t change for person (I, you, we etc.), but some change for tense.

Present: må
- Vi må passe på barna. → We must / have to look after the children.
Past: måtte
- Vi måtte passe på barna i hagen.
  → We had to look after the children in the garden.

There is no extra ending for vi, du, han, etc. The verb form stays the same for all persons in the same tense.

Is passe in any special form here? Why isn’t it conjugated?

After a modal verb like må, the main verb appears in the infinitive:

å passe = to look after / to fit / to suit (depending on context)

In a sentence:

Vi må passe på barna.
- må = conjugated modal verb (present)
- passe = infinitive

Norwegian infinitive often has å in front when used on its own (å passe), but when it comes after a modal (kan, vil, skal, må, bør etc.), the å is dropped.

Can passe på have other meanings than look after?

Yes. Passe på can also mean to make sure, to ensure, to be careful, depending on what follows:

Look after / watch
- Kan du passe på veska mi?
  → Can you keep an eye on my bag?
Make sure / ensure (often with at
- clause)
- Pass på at du låser døra.
  → Make sure you lock the door.
Be careful
- Pass på! Det er glatt.
  → Be careful! It’s slippery.

In Vi må passe på barna i hagen, it is the look after / watch meaning.

Does Vi må passe på barna i hagen sound like a command, an obligation, or just a neutral statement?

It usually sounds like an obligation/necessity:

We have to / need to watch the children in the garden.

Tone and context can make it feel more like a reminder or soft command:

As a neutral statement:
- Vi må passe på barna i hagen, ellers kan noe skje.
  → We have to watch the children in the garden, otherwise something might happen.
As a suggestion / planning:
- Når barna leker ute, må vi passe på barna i hagen.
  → When the children play outside, we must / have to watch the children in the garden.

So grammatically it states necessity; how strong that feels depends on context and intonation.