Stranden er vakker, men bølgene kan være farlige når det blåser.

The beach is beautiful, but the waves can be dangerous when it is windy.

Breakdown of Stranden er vakker, men bølgene kan være farlige når det blåser.

• være: to be
• det: it
• vakker: beautiful
• men: but
• kunne: can
• når: when
• farlig: dangerous
• stranden: the beach
• bølgen: the wave
• blåse: to blow

Questions & Answers about Stranden er vakker, men bølgene kan være farlige når det blåser.

Why is the definite article -en attached to the noun strand in Stranden instead of using a separate word like the?

In Norwegian Bokmål, the definite singular is usually formed by adding a suffix to the noun rather than placing a separate article in front.

• strand (a beach) → stranden (the beach)
  This replaces English “the beach.” You could also say den stranden for emphasis, but then you’d need the adjective to agree (see next question).

Why doesn’t the adjective vakker change form to vakre in Stranden er vakker?

Adjectives in predicate position (after er) agree only in number, not in definiteness:

• Singular predicate: no ending → vakker
• Plural predicate: add -e → de er vakre
  So Stranden er vakker stays vakker because stranden is singular.

What’s the difference between saying Stranden er vakker and Den vakre stranden?

These are two ways to describe “the beautiful beach”:
1) Predicate adjective: Stranden er vakker (“The beach is beautiful.”) – adjective after verb, no -e in singular.
2) Attributive adjective: den vakre stranden (“the beautiful beach”) – adjective before noun, takes -e for definite:
• vakker → vakre
• plus definite article den + noun suffix -en → den vakre stranden.

Why is men used here, and can I use anything else for “but”?

men is the standard conjunction for “but” in Norwegian. It connects two main clauses and enforces the V2 (verb-second) rule in the second clause. There is no other single-word alternative for “but” in this context.

Why do we say bølgene instead of bølger for “the waves”?

bølge (wave) forms its plural indefinite by adding -r: bølger (waves). To make that plural definite, you add -ne:

• bølger (waves) → bølgene (the waves).
  Here we refer to those specific waves at the beach, so we use the definite plural.

Why is the adjective farlig written farlige after bølgene kan være?

Adjectives in predicative position agree in number. Since bølgene is plural, the adjective takes -e:

• bølgene er farlige (“the waves are dangerous”)
  When you add a modal (kan være), the rule is the same: plural → farlige.

Why is there no å before være in kan være?

In Norwegian, after a modal verb (kan, skal, vil, må, etc.), the main verb appears in the bare infinitive without å:

• kan å være (wrong)
• kan være (correct)
  Compare: Jeg vil spise (“I want to eat.”), not Jeg vil å spise.

Why do we use når det blåser for “when it’s windy,” and why is det necessary?

1) når introduces a temporal or conditional clause for present/future or habitual events (“when/whenever”). da would be for a single past event.
2) Norwegian requires an explicit subject. Weather verbs are impersonal, so we use the dummy subject det:

• det blåser = “it is blowing” → “it’s windy.”
  Put together: når det blåser = “when/whenever it blows (is windy).”

Could I use hvis instead of når here?

Yes, but there’s a nuance:

• når implies a recurring or expected condition (“whenever it’s windy”).
• hvis implies a hypothetical possibility (“if it should be windy”).
  In many contexts they overlap, but når feels more like “every time it’s windy,” while hvis is more speculative.