Jeg bruker lommeuret til å måle hvor lenge forelesningen faktisk varer.

I use the pocket watch to measure how long the lecture actually lasts.

Breakdown of Jeg bruker lommeuret til å måle hvor lenge forelesningen faktisk varer.

• jeg: I
• til: to
• å: to
• bruke: to use
• faktisk: actually
• måle: to measure
• lommeuret: the pocket watch
• forelesningen: the lecture
• hvor lenge: how long
• vare: to last

Questions & Answers about Jeg bruker lommeuret til å måle hvor lenge forelesningen faktisk varer.

Why is it lommeuret with -et at the end?

Norwegian marks the definite article as a suffix. The noun lommeur (pocket watch) is neuter:

• Singular: et lommeur (a pocket watch) → lommeuret (the pocket watch)
• Plural: lommeur (pocket watches) → lommeurene (the pocket watches)

So lommeuret means “the pocket watch,” i.e., a specific one known from context.

How do I say my pocket watch?

Use a possessive:

• Neutral, most common: lommeuret mitt
• More emphatic/contrastive: mitt lommeur

Both mean “my pocket watch,” but preposed possessives (mitt lommeur) add emphasis (my watch, not someone else’s). In many everyday contexts Norwegians can use just the definite form when ownership is obvious, but adding mitt makes it explicit.

Can I use klokke instead of lommeur?

• lommeur = a pocket watch (set expression; neuter).
• klokke = a watch/clock in general (everyday word). For a wristwatch you’d say klokka/klokken: Jeg bruker klokka.
• ur is a more formal/technical word for clocks, but lommeur is the fixed term for pocket watch.

Why is it til å måle and not for å måle?

With bruke (to use), the idiomatic pattern is bruke + NOUN + til å + infinitive to show a tool’s function:

• Jeg bruker lommeuret til å måle tid. (I use the pocket watch to measure time.) Use for å to express the purpose of your action:
• Jeg tok med lommeuret for å måle tiden. (I brought it in order to measure the time.)

Is bruke … for å wrong?

Not strictly. You will hear Jeg bruker lommeuret for å …, and many find it acceptable. However, bruke … til å is the safest and most idiomatic choice, especially in careful writing.

What does hvor lenge mean, and how is it different from hvor lang tid?

Both ask about duration.

• hvor lenge = “how long” (adverbial)
• hvor lang tid = “how much time” (noun phrase)

In your sentence both work:

• … til å måle hvor lenge forelesningen faktisk varer
• … til å måle hvor lang tid forelesningen faktisk varer “hvor lenge” is shorter and very natural.

Why is the word order forelesningen faktisk varer (verb at the end)?

It’s an embedded question introduced by hvor. In subordinate clauses, the finite verb follows the subject (and comes after sentence adverbs like faktisk):

• … hvor lenge [S: forelesningen] [Adv: faktisk] [V: varer]. V2 (verb-second) word order applies to main clauses, not to subordinate clauses.

Where can I place faktisk? Could I say … forelesningen varer faktisk?

In subordinate clauses, sentence adverbs like faktisk go before the finite verb:

• Do: … hvor lenge forelesningen faktisk varer.
• Don’t: … hvor lenge forelesningen varer faktisk. (ungrammatical in standard Norwegian)

You can also move faktisk to the main clause for different emphasis:

• Jeg bruker faktisk lommeuret … (I actually use the pocket watch …)

Why is varer in the present tense here?

Norwegian present can cover general truths, ongoing actions, and near-future situations. You’re timing how long the lecture “lasts” as it happens (or as a general habit), hence varer.

• Past: … hvor lenge forelesningen faktisk varte.
• Future: … hvor lenge forelesningen kommer til å vare.

What’s the difference between vare (to last) and være (to be)? I see varer and var—help!

Two different verbs:

• å vare – varer – varte – har vart (to last)
  • Filmen varer i to timer.
• å være – er – var – har vært (to be)
  • Møtet var i går.

Don’t mix var (was) with varte (lasted).

Is å måle the best verb for to time something?

å måle (to measure) works, but the idiomatic way to “time” is å ta tiden (på):

• Jeg tar tiden på forelesningen. You can combine it with your sentence pattern:
• Jeg bruker lommeuret til å ta tiden på forelesningen.

Should there be a comma before hvor lenge …?

No. The hvor lenge-clause is an integrated object clause of å måle, and Norwegian doesn’t put a comma here:

• Jeg liker å se hvor langt jeg kan løpe. Similarly: … til å måle hvor lenge …

How would I turn that part into a direct question?

• Hvor lenge varer forelesningen? If you want the “actually” nuance in a question, egentlig is more idiomatic:
• Hvor lenge varer forelesningen egentlig? (You can use faktisk too, but egentlig sounds more natural in many questions.)

What’s the nuance of faktisk here? Could I use egentlig instead?

• faktisk highlights factual reality (as opposed to expectation/assumption or schedule).
• egentlig is “really/actually” in a more conversational, softening way. In your sentence, faktisk contrasts the measured duration with the supposed/official one. You could say egentlig, but it shifts the tone to more colloquial.

Why isn’t there an i after varer (like varer i to timer)?

When you state a specific duration, use i:

• Forelesningen varer i to timer. When you ask or embed “how long,” hvor lenge already carries the duration meaning, so you don’t add i:
• Hvor lenge varer forelesningen?
• … å måle hvor lenge forelesningen varer.

What exactly does forelesning mean, and is its grammar regular?

forelesning = a lecture (typically at a university). It’s a regular common-gender noun:

• Singular: en forelesning → forelesningen
• Plural: forelesninger → forelesningene Contrast:
• en time (a class period/lesson at school)
• et foredrag (a talk/lecture, often one-off or public)