Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Gjerdet rundt hagen er lavt, så hunden hopper over. - The fence around the garden is low, so the dog jumps over.

Here så is a coordinating conjunction meaning “so/therefore.” It does not trigger inversion, so the subject comes before the verb: …, så hunden hopper over.

Compare:

Så hopper hunden over. Here så means “then” (an adverb placed first), so you get inversion (V2).

Why is there a comma before så?

Norwegian normally puts a comma between two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (like og, men, for, eller, så): Gjerdet … er lavt, så hunden …. It separates the two main clauses.

Why are both gjerdet and hagen in the definite form?

They refer to specific, known things: the fence and the garden. Norwegian marks definiteness with a suffix:

et gjerde → gjerdet
en hage → hagen

If you were introducing them for the first time, you could use indefinite forms: et gjerde rundt en hage.

Could I say det lave gjerdet here? How does double definiteness work?

Yes, with an adjective you use “double definiteness” in Norwegian: a free article + a definite-suffixed noun.

det lave gjerdet rundt hagen = the low fence around the garden.

Without an adjective, just the suffixed form is used: gjerdet.

Can I move rundt hagen elsewhere in the sentence?

Keep it next to the noun it modifies: Gjerdet rundt hagen er lavt. If you say Gjerdet er lavt rundt hagen, it can sound like “the fence is low in the area around the garden,” which is odd/ambiguous.

Could I use om or omkring instead of rundt?

rundt hagen = most common and neutral.
om hagen = also possible, but can sound a bit formal/old-fashioned or dialectal.
omkring hagen / rundt omkring hagen = “around, all around,” a bit more expansive in feel.

Can I say …, så hunden hopper over gjerdet or …, så hunden hopper over det?

Yes to both. Repeating the noun (over gjerdet) is clear; using the pronoun (over det) is also fine (it refers back to the neuter gjerdet). Omitting the object (hopper over) is idiomatic when the object is obvious from context, as here.

Does hoppe over also mean “to skip” in Norwegian?

Yes. Two common uses:

Literal: Hunden hopper over gjerdet.
Figurative (“skip”): Jeg hopper over desserten.

With a pronoun, the particle stays with the verb: hoppe over det (not “hoppe det over”).

Where would the negation ikke go?

After the verb in the clause:

With coordinating så: …, så hunden hopper ikke over.
With adverb derfor: …; derfor hopper hunden ikke over.
With fordi (subordinator) first: Fordi gjerdet rundt hagen er lavt, hopper hunden ikke over.

Can I replace så with derfor or fordi?

derfor (therefore) is an adverb and triggers inversion: Gjerdet … er lavt; derfor hopper hunden over. Prefer a period or semicolon, not a comma.
fordi (because) introduces a subordinate clause: Hunden hopper over fordi gjerdet rundt hagen er lavt. If the fordi-clause comes first: Fordi … er lavt, hopper hunden over.

What are the genders and articles of the nouns here?

et gjerde (neuter) → gjerdet
en hage (common gender) → hagen
en hund (common gender) → hunden

This is why the adjective is lavt (neuter) with gjerdet.

How do you pronounce the trickier bits?

gj in gjerdet is like English y: roughly “YER-deh.”
rd in many dialects merges to a retroflex sound; you may hear something like “YER-de.”
u in rundt is the rounded front vowel (like French “u”/German “ü”): say a very rounded “ruhnt.”
over has a long “o”: “OH-ver.” All of these vary by dialect; you’ll be understood with standard approximations.

Is Norwegian present tense (hopper) used for both ongoing and habitual actions?

Yes. Hunden hopper over can mean “the dog is jumping over (now)” or “the dog (usually) jumps over,” depending on context. Time adverbs (e.g., nå, ofte) remove the ambiguity.

Could I say …så en hund hopper over?

Grammatically yes, but it sounds odd unless you mean “so a (some) dog jumps over.” In this context we’re talking about a specific dog, so hunden (definite) is natural.