Learn Hardcore Danish: Det er ikke kun lønnen, der betyder noget for hende; det er også nødvendigt for hende at gøre noget fornuftigt for andre. - It is not only the salary that matters to her; it is also necessary for her to do something sensible for others.

Det er ikke kun lønnen, der betyder noget for hende
to highlight lønnen as the focused element: It’s not only the salary that matters to her...

Why is it lønnen and not just løn?

Lønen is the definite form of løn (salary, pay).

løn = a salary / salary (indefinite)
lønnen = the salary (definite)

In this context, English says “the salary” or often just “salary” without “the”, but Danish must mark definiteness:

Det er ikke kun lønnen...
It’s not only the salary (aspect) that matters...

This refers to her salary in general, as a known, specific thing in her life, so the definite form -en is natural in Danish.

What is the function of der in lønnen, der betyder noget? Can it be som?

Here der is a relative pronoun, introducing a clause that describes lønnen:

lønnen, der betyder noget for hende
= the salary that matters to her

In subject position, Danish can usually use either der or som:

lønnen, der betyder noget
lønnen, som betyder noget

Both are correct here. In many cases they are interchangeable when they refer to the subject of the relative clause. Style preferences vary, but der is very common in sentences like this.

What does betyder noget mean here? Why not er vigtig?

Betyder noget literally means “means something”, but idiomatically it corresponds to English “matters” / “is important”.

det betyder noget (for hende)
= it matters (to her) / it’s important (to her)

So:

Det er ikke kun lønnen, der betyder noget for hende
= It’s not only the salary that matters to her.

You could say:

Det er ikke kun lønnen, der er vigtig for hende.

This is also understandable, but:

betyder noget (for nogen) is the more common idiomatic way to say “matters (to someone)”.
er vigtig is more like “is important” as an inherent characteristic, and feels slightly more neutral or descriptive.

Why is it for hende and not til hende?

Both for and til can translate as “for”, but they’re used differently.

for hende = for her, from her point of view, in relation to her
(concern, relevance, importance)
til hende = to her, intended for her, going to her
(direction, recipient, purpose)

Examples:

Det betyder meget for hende.
It means a lot to her / It matters to her. (emotional/subjective importance)
Jeg giver gaven til hende.
I give the present to her. (she is the recipient)

In our sentence, we’re talking about what matters to her, so for hende is correct:

...der betyder noget for hende
...that matters to her

Why is there a semicolon (;) instead of a comma or a full stop?

The semicolon links two closely related independent clauses:

Det er ikke kun lønnen, der betyder noget for hende;
det er også nødvendigt for hende at gøre noget fornuftigt for andre.

You could also write:

With a full stop:
Det er ikke kun lønnen, der betyder noget for hende. Det er også nødvendigt...
With a coordinating conjunction (less elegant style):
..., og det er også nødvendigt...

The semicolon:

keeps the two ideas in one long sentence,
shows a stronger connection between them than a full stop would,
avoids a very long clause chained just by commas.

What does det er også nødvendigt for hende at gøre noget literally mean? Why use det er nødvendigt?

Literally:

det er også nødvendigt for hende at gøre noget fornuftigt for andre
= it is also necessary for her to do something sensible for others

Here det is a dummy subject, like English “it” in “it is necessary to...”.

Structure:

det er nødvendigt (for nogen) at + infinitive
- det = dummy “it”
- er nødvendigt = is necessary
- for hende = for her / for her personally
- at gøre = to do

You could express a similar idea more directly as:

Hun har også brug for at gøre noget fornuftigt for andre.
She also needs to do something meaningful for others.

But det er nødvendigt for hende at... sounds a bit more formal/impersonal and matches the style of the first clause with det er....

Why is it at gøre noget fornuftigt and not, for example, at lave noget fornuftigt?

Both gøre and lave can mean “do”, but they have slightly different typical uses.

gøre is more general and very common in set phrases:
- gøre noget fornuftigt – do something sensible/meaningful
- gøre en forskel – make a difference
- gøre noget for andre – do something for others
lave often suggests making, producing, performing a specific task:
- lave mad – cook
- lave lektier – do homework
- lave fejl – make mistakes

Here, at gøre noget fornuftigt is an idiomatic collocation:
to do something sensible/meaningful (in a general, abstract sense).
At lave noget fornuftigt would be understood, but is less idiomatic in this abstract, moral/meaningful sense.

Why is it noget fornuftigt and not nogle fornuftige ting?

Both could work, but they have different nuances.

noget fornuftigt
= something sensible/meaningful (singular, general, abstract)
- noget = something (neuter, indefinite)
- fornuftigt = neuter form of the adjective fornuftig, agreeing with noget
nogle fornuftige ting
= some sensible things (plural, more concrete countable items)

In this sentence, we are not focusing on specific items but on the idea of doing something meaningful with her life / for other people. So the abstract noget fornuftigt fits better.

What does for andre mean, and why is it just andre without a noun?

For andre means “for others”:

for = for
andre = others (literally “other people” here)

Danish often leaves out the noun mennesker (people) when it’s clear from context:

for andre (mennesker) = for other (people)

So:

...at gøre noget fornuftigt for andre
= to do something meaningful for others.

You could say for andre mennesker, but it’s not necessary; andre alone is natural and idiomatic.