Learn Hardcore Danish: Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden. - We find a friendly solution so the group can still meet on time.

Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.

We find a friendly solution so the group can still meet on time.

Breakdown of Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Danish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Danish now

Questions & Answers about Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.

Why is it “en venlig løsning” and not “et venlig løsning” or “en venligt løsning”?

In Danish, articles and adjectives have to agree with the gender and form of the noun.

løsning is a common gender noun (n-Word), so its indefinite article is en, not et.
- en løsning = a solution
- et hus = a house (neuter)
The adjective venlig (“friendly”, “kind”) is in its base form because:
- the noun is singular, indefinite, common gender
- the pattern is: en + base-form adjective + noun
  - en venlig løsning
  - en stor bil (a big car)

If it were neuter, you would say:

et venligt forslag (a friendly suggestion)

Here the adjective adds -t (venligt) to agree with the neuter noun forslag.

So en venlig løsning is correct because løsning is common gender, singular, indefinite, and the adjective must match that pattern.

What exactly does “venlig” mean here? Is it “friendly”, “kind”, or something else?

Venlig generally means kind, friendly, considerate, or polite, depending on context.

In “en venlig løsning”, it usually suggests:

an amicable solution
a kind or considerate solution
a solution where people are treated nicely and without conflict

Translating it as “a friendly solution” is literal, but in natural English you might say:

an amicable solution
a kind solution
a considerate solution

So venlig here is about the tone and attitude of the solution—something that keeps everyone on good terms.

What is the role of “så” in “..., så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.”? Is it “so” or “so that”? Is this a main clause or a subordinate clause?

Here så works like English “so (that)” and introduces a result / purpose clause:

Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.
→ We find a friendly solution, so (that) the group can still meet on time.

Grammatically, after så you get subordinate-clause word order:

gruppen (subject)
alligevel (midfield adverb)
kan (finite verb)
mødes (main verb)

So “så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden” behaves like a subordinate clause:
subject + (adverb) + finite verb + rest.

Compare:

Main clause with inversion after a fronted element:
- I dag mødes gruppen. (Today the group meets.)
Subordinate clause:
- at gruppen mødes i dag. (that the group meets today.)

Your sentence following så looks like the subordinate pattern: gruppen alligevel kan mødes …

Could I also say “..., så kan gruppen alligevel mødes til tiden”? What is the difference?

Yes, you can say:

Vi finder en venlig løsning, så kan gruppen alligevel mødes til tiden.

But the nuance changes:

Original:
- Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.
  This sounds like “We find a friendly solution so that the group can still meet on time.”
  → One action (finding a solution) enables the other (meeting on time). Clear purpose/result link inside one complex sentence.
With “så kan gruppen ...” as a main clause:
- Vi finder en venlig løsning, så kan gruppen alligevel mødes til tiden.
  This feels more like two separate main clauses:
  “We’ll find a friendly solution, and then the group can still meet on time.”
  → Slightly more like a sequence of events or a conclusion, more spoken and informal.

Both are correct, but if you want a smooth written style and a clear “so that” meaning, the original version with “så gruppen ... kan” is better.

What does “alligevel” mean here, and why is it placed between “gruppen” and “kan”?

Alligevel means something like “anyway”, “still”, “after all”, or “nevertheless”.

In this sentence:

Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.

it expresses that despite some difficulty or obstacle, the group will still be able to meet on time.

About the position:

In subordinate clauses, sentence adverbs like alligevel usually go in the “midfield” after the subject and before the finite verb:
- gruppen alligevel kan mødes
  subject – adverb – verb

Other midfield adverbs are ikke (not), aldrig (never), jo, måske, etc.

You could say:

... så gruppen kan alligevel mødes til tiden.

but this sounds less natural; Danish strongly prefers:

... så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.

What is the difference between “mødes” and “møder”? Why is it “kan mødes” here?

Danish has two related verbs:

at møde
- basic meaning: to meet, to encounter, to attend
- can be transitive:
  - Jeg møder ham. = I meet him.
- or intransitive:
  - Jeg møder kl. 9. = I start work / show up at 9.
at mødes
- this is the reciprocal / reflexive form: to meet (each other)
- like English “meet up”
- used when it’s mutual:
  - Vi mødes i morgen. = We’ll meet (each other) tomorrow.
  - Gruppen mødes hver mandag. = The group meets every Monday.

In “gruppen ... kan mødes til tiden”, the idea is that the group members meet each other. That’s a reciprocal situation, so mødes is natural.

You could say “kan møde til tiden”, but that would typically sound more like “can show up on time” (e.g. for work), not “meet up with one another”.

Why is it “til tiden” and not something like “i tiden”? What does “til tiden” mean exactly?

Til tiden is an idiomatic expression meaning “on time”:

mødes til tiden = meet on time, at the planned time

The preposition til literally means “to”, but in this idiom it functions similarly to English “on time” rather than “to the time”.

Compare with i tide:

i tide = in time (before it’s too late, not necessarily at a fixed scheduled time)
- Vi kom i tide. = We arrived in time (before the deadline / before something bad happened).
til tiden = on time (according to schedule)
- Vi kom til tiden. = We arrived on time (not late).

So “mødes til tiden” is about being punctual according to an arranged time.

Why is it “gruppen” and not just “gruppe”? How does definiteness work here?

In Danish, definiteness is usually expressed with a suffix on the noun rather than (or in addition to) a separate article:

en gruppe = a group (indefinite)
gruppen = the group (definite)

In the sentence:

..., så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.

using gruppen implies that this is a specific, known group—probably already mentioned or understood from context.

If you said:

..., så en gruppe alligevel kan mødes til tiden.

it would mean “so that a group can still meet on time”, which sounds more indefinite and vague.

So gruppen = “the group”, already known to speaker and listener.

Why is the verb “finder” in the present tense if this is about a future result (the group being able to meet)?

Danish often uses the present tense where English would use the future:

Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.
literally: We find a friendly solution, so the group still can meet on time.

In English you’d naturally say:

We’ll find a friendly solution so that the group can still meet on time.

But in Danish:

The present can express a future action, especially when:
- the future time is clear from context, or
- the action is part of a plan or expectation.

You could add a future marker like “kommer til at finde”:

Vi kommer til at finde en venlig løsning ...
= We are going to find / will end up finding a friendly solution ...

However, simple present (finder) is perfectly normal and often preferred for this kind of statement about the near future or a planned outcome.

Is the comma before “så” necessary? How do comma rules work here?

In modern, more relaxed Danish punctuation, the comma before “så” in this sentence is:

standard and recommended, but in some systems optional, depending on whether you treat the part after så as a full clause.

The sentence is:

Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.

Comma rules (simplified):

Danish usually puts a comma before a clause that starts with a conjunction like men, for, så, fordi, at, hvis, etc.
Here, “så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden” is a clause introduced by så, so the comma is natural.

In practice:

With traditional clause commas, you absolutely keep it.
With newer, simplified comma rules, you might see some variation, but most writers will still use the comma here.

For learning purposes, it’s safest to write it with the comma:
Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.

Could I replace “så” with “for at” or “så at”? Would the meaning change?

You can sometimes use for at or så at, but the nuance is slightly different:

så (as in the original):
- “..., så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.”
  → result / consequence or so that
  Neutral, very common.
for at:
- Typically expresses purpose / intention: “in order to”.
- If you tried: “Vi finder en venlig løsning, for at gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.”,
  this sounds off; with for at, you usually don’t keep a finite modal like kan.
- More natural: “Vi finder en venlig løsning for, at gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.” is also quite stiff and uncommon.
- Better: “Vi finder en venlig løsning, for at gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden” would still be unusual; Danish typically uses så (at) or just så in this context.
så at:
- More explicitly “so that”, often with a stronger “result” sense:
- You might say: “Vi finder en venlig løsning, så at gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.”
  but in everyday Danish, people usually just say “så gruppen ... kan ...” and drop at.

So in natural, everyday usage, the original with just “så” is best:

Vi finder en venlig løsning, så gruppen alligevel kan mødes til tiden.