Learn Hardcore Danish: Det er ikke sikkert, at man bliver lykkelig, bare fordi man er rig. - It is not certain that one becomes happy just because one is rich.

Det here is a dummy subject, like English “it” in “It is important to sleep” or “It’s not certain that …”.
Danish often uses this structure: Det er + adjective (e.g. vigtigt, sikkert, umuligt) + at/at-sentence.

So the whole pattern is:

Det er ikke sikkert, at … = It is not certain that …

What is the function of at in at man bliver lykkelig?

At here is a subordinating conjunction, equivalent to English “that” in sentences like “It’s not certain that you become happy.”

Main clause: Det er ikke sikkert
Subordinate clause introduced by at: at man bliver lykkelig

You normally cannot omit at in this type of sentence in written Danish, even though in English you could say:

“It’s not certain (that) you become happy.”

In Danish you need the at:

Det er ikke sikkert, at man bliver lykkelig.

Why is man used here instead of du or a specific person like han/hun?

Man is a generic pronoun in Danish. It corresponds to English “one”, “you” (in a general sense), or “people”.

In this sentence:

… at man bliver lykkelig … ≈ “… that one/you/people become happy …”

You could say:

at du bliver lykkelig = talking to a specific you
at han/hun bliver lykkelig = talking about a specific he/she

But man makes the statement general: it’s about people in general, not any particular person.

Why is bliver used instead of er? What is the nuance?

Bliver literally means “becomes” (from the verb at blive), so:

man bliver lykkelig = “one becomes happy”

Using bliver emphasizes a change of state: going from not happy to happy.

If you used er:

man er lykkelig = “one is happy” (describing a state, not the change)

In this context, bliver fits better, because the idea is:

Being rich does not automatically make you (i.e., cause you to become) happy.

So the sentence is about whether wealth leads to happiness, not just about whether rich people are or are not happy at some particular moment.

What is the difference between lykkelig and glad? Could I say glad here?

Both words relate to happiness, but the nuance is different:

glad = happy, pleased, cheerful, often about a more temporary or light happiness.
- Jeg er glad i dag. = I’m happy today.
lykkelig = truly happy, fortunate, deeply content, often about deeper, lasting happiness or a sense that life is good.
- Jeg er lykkelig. = I’m (deeply) happy / fulfilled.

Here, lykkelig is better, because the sentence is about the big life question:
whether money brings real happiness or fulfillment, not just a good mood.

You could say … at man bliver glad …, but it would sound weaker and change the nuance to more like:

It’s not certain you’ll be in a good mood / feel pleased just because you’re rich.

The common proverb-like idea is about lykkelig, not just glad.

What does bare fordi mean here? Is bare necessary?

Bare fordi literally is “just because”.

fordi man er rig = because one is rich
bare fordi man er rig = just because one is rich

The bare adds the sense of “only” / “merely”, and often carries a slight warning or objection:

Jeg bliver ikke glad, bare fordi du siger undskyld.
= I’m not happy just because you say sorry.

Without bare, the sentence is still grammatical but loses that nuance and sounds more neutral:

… ikke sikkert, at man bliver lykkelig, fordi man er rig.
= It’s not certain that one becomes happy because one is rich.

With bare, it sounds more like the natural, idiomatic “Being rich alone isn’t enough to make you happy.”

Why is the word order man bliver lykkelig and not man lykkelig bliver in the clause after at?

In Danish subordinate clauses (introduced by at, fordi, etc.), the standard word order is:

Subject – Verb – (Other elements)

So:

man (subject)
bliver (verb)
lykkelig (adjective/complement)

→ man bliver lykkelig

You do not invert subject and verb in this kind of subordinate clause, so man lykkelig bliver is wrong.

Main clause word order can be different (with inversion after certain adverbs or in questions), but in at-clauses the normal order is subject before verb.

Why is ikke placed before sikkert in Det er ikke sikkert? Could it go somewhere else?

Ikke normally comes after the finite verb and before most adjectives and adverbs in a main clause:

Det er ikke sikkert.
- er = finite verb
- ikke = negation
- sikkert = adjective

So the pattern is:

Subject – Verb – (Negation) – Adjective
Det – er – ikke – sikkert

You cannot move ikke in front of the verb here:

❌ Det ikke er sikkert (wrong in this context as a main clause).

The placement in the sentence is regular and follows the usual S – V – ikke – (rest) order for main clauses.

Why are there commas before at and before bare fordi? Are they required?

Danish comma rules can be strict, and in standard written Danish, the commas in this sentence are normal and expected:

Before at:
- Det er ikke sikkert, at man bliver lykkelig …
- There is a comma before at because it introduces a subordinate clause.
Before bare fordi:
- …, bare fordi man er rig.
- This is another clause (fordi-clause) that adds a reason, so a comma is used to separate it from the main statement.

Whether you must write all such commas depends on which comma system you follow, but in practice, learners are usually taught to put commas before most subordinate clauses introduced by at, fordi, når, hvis, som etc.

So as a learner, it’s safe to remember:

Comma before at when it starts a clause.
Comma before fordi-clauses like this one.

Could I say Det er ikke sikkert, at du bliver lykkelig, bare fordi du er rig instead of man?

Yes, grammatically that’s fine:

Det er ikke sikkert, at du bliver lykkelig, bare fordi du er rig.
= It’s not certain that you’ll be happy just because you’re rich.

The change is in who the statement is about:

With man: a general truth about people.
With du: addressing a specific person (or a “you” that stands in for readers/listeners, like in advice).

The version with man sounds more like a proverb or general observation.
The version with du is more direct and could even sound like a warning to someone.

How would you translate the whole sentence into natural English, not just word-for-word?

A very natural translation would be:

“Being rich doesn’t necessarily make you happy.”

Other good options:

“It’s not certain that you’ll be happy just because you’re rich.”
“Just because you’re rich, it doesn’t mean you’ll be happy.”

The first one (“doesn’t necessarily make you happy”) is probably the closest to how this kind of sentence is usually expressed idiomatically in English.