Learn Hardcore Danish: Det er ikke typisk for ham at komme for sent til sport. - It is not typical for him to arrive late to sport.

If you said Han er ikke typisk…, it would sound wrong or at least very odd, because typisk here does not directly describe him (like “He is typical”), but the situation of him coming late. So you need the pattern:

Det er (ikke) typisk for [person] at [verb] …

Why do we say typisk for ham and not typisk af ham or something else?

With typisk, Danish usually uses for to show who it is typical of:

Det er typisk for ham at… – It’s typical of him to…
Det er typisk for hende at… – It’s typical of her to…

Using af here (✗ typisk af ham) would be incorrect. Af is used in other structures, e.g. lavet af ham (made by him), but not with typisk in this meaning.

So the fixed pattern to remember:

typisk for [person / group] at [verb]

Why is ikke placed after er: Det er ikke typisk…? Could it go somewhere else?

In main clauses, the finite verb usually comes in second position, and ikke normally comes after that verb:

Det er ikke typisk…
- Det = 1st element
- er = 2nd element (finite verb)
- ikke comes after the verb

You cannot say:

✗ Det ikke er typisk…
✗ Ikke det er typisk…

You can move the focus a bit, but ikke still follows the finite verb. For example, if you fronted something else:

For ham er det ikke typisk at komme for sent til sport.
(“For him, it is not typical to come late to sport.”)

Still: er is the finite verb in second place, ikke comes right after er.

Why do we use at komme here, and do we always need at before a verb like this?

At is the infinitive marker in Danish (like to in English in “to come”).

In this sentence, at komme for sent til sport is an infinitive clause:

Det er ikke typisk for ham at komme for sent til sport.
= It is not typical for him *to come late to sport.*

You must use at with infinitives in this kind of structure, unless the verb is one of the special verbs that normally drop at (like vil, kan, skal, må, bør, plejer, etc.):

Han plejer ikke at komme for sent. – Here plejer still keeps at.
Han kan ikke komme. – No at after kan.

So in this pattern det er typisk for ham at…, you always need at before the verb.

What exactly does for sent mean here? Is it “too late” or just “late”?

For sent literally looks like “too late” (for as in “too”), but in everyday Danish it very often just means “late” in the sense of not on time:

Han kommer for sent.
= He is arriving late / He’s late.

Nuance:

sent on its own is more neutral: late (in time)
for sent often implies you have missed the correct time or later than acceptable.

In practice, when talking about being late for something (school, work, sport), Danes almost always say for sent.

Why is it til sport and not i sport or til sporten?

Prepositions with activities are a bit idiomatic in Danish. Here:

til sport is understood as to (his) sports practice / training / sports activity.

Some common options:

til sport – very general: going to do some sports (e.g. weekly practice).
til træning – more specific: to practice / training.
til kampen – to the match / game.

I sport would more likely describe being involved in sport in a general sense (“He works in sport”), not going to a session. Til sporten (with definite article) would mean something like “to the sport” and usually sounds off unless you’ve already specified a particular sport very clearly.

So in the context “being late to sports practice”, til sport is natural and idiomatic.

Why is there no article before sport? Why not til en sport or til sporten?

In Danish, sport is often used as an uncountable or generic noun when talking about sports as an activity:

Han går til sport. – He goes to sports (as an activity).
Jeg kan godt lide sport. – I like sport(s).

You use an article when you specify a particular sport:

Han går til fodbold. – He goes to football (soccer).
Hun går til håndbold. – She goes to handball.

Til en sport would mean to a (single) sport and sounds odd in this context. Til sporten refers to a specific, previously mentioned sport (“to the sport we talked about”), which is not needed here. The sentence is general: his sports practice in general → til sport.

What is the grammar role of at komme for sent til sport in this sentence?

The clause at komme for sent til sport functions as a real subject that has been moved to the end, while det is a dummy/formal subject:

Det = formal subject
er = verb
ikke typisk for ham = predicative (description)
at komme for sent til sport = real subject (infinitive clause)

A more literal structure is:

(At komme for sent til sport) er ikke typisk for ham.
(“To be late for sport is not typical for him.”)

But this sounds heavy in Danish, so it’s much more natural to use det and push the infinitive clause to the end:

Det er ikke typisk for ham at komme for sent til sport.

Could we express the same idea with plejer or normalt? How would that change the nuance?

Yes, there are several natural alternatives with slightly different focuses:

Han plejer ikke at komme for sent til sport.
- He doesn’t usually come late to sport.
- Focus on his habit / usual behaviour.
Det er ikke normalt for ham at komme for sent til sport.
- It’s not normal for him to come late to sport.
- Very close in meaning to ikke typisk, but normalt can sound a bit more neutral.
Han kommer sjældent for sent til sport.
- He rarely comes late to sport.
- Focus on frequency rather than “typicalness.”

Original:

Det er ikke typisk for ham at komme for sent til sport.
- Emphasizes: this behaviour doesn’t fit his character / usual way of being.

Is there anything important about the pronunciation of ikke typisk for ham that I should know?

A few points that often surprise English speakers:

ikke is usually pronounced something like /ˈegə/ or /ˈikə/ depending on dialect; the final -e is not a clear “eh” but a weak schwa.
typisk:
- y is like the French u in lune or German ü in Tür.
- The k may sound more like a soft /g/ between vowels in some accents.
for is often pronounced very reduced, close to /fɔ/ or even /fo/.
ham is often pronounced more like /ˈhɑm/, with m clearly there, not like English him.

So the whole middle part might sound roughly like:
[ˈegə ˈtʰyːbɪs fɔ ˈhɑm] (varies by region), much more slurred together than English speakers expect.