Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Han sier at det er mulig å få rabatt; i tillegg kan vi dele prisen. - He says that it is possible to get a discount; in addition we can share the price.

At is the complementizer “that,” introducing an indirect statement: Han sier at … = “He says that …”. In standard written Norwegian you keep at. In informal speech it’s often dropped when the meaning is clear: Han sier det er mulig å få rabatt …. If you’re unsure, include at in writing.

What’s the word order inside the at-clause?

Subordinate clauses don’t use main-clause V2 word order. The pattern is Subject–(adverb)–Verb:

Han sier at det ikke er mulig å få rabatt. (ikke comes before the verb in the subclause) Compare the main clause: Det er ikke mulig … (finite verb still comes second).

Why is it i tillegg kan vi … and not i tillegg vi kan …?

Norwegian main clauses are V2: the finite verb must be in second position. When you front an adverbial like i tillegg, the verb comes next: i tillegg kan vi …. If you don’t front it, you can say Vi kan i tillegg dele prisen.

Is the semicolon necessary here? Could I use a comma, a period, or og?

The semicolon correctly links two closely related main clauses. Alternatives:

Period: Han sier … . I tillegg kan vi …
Conjunction: Han sier …, og i tillegg kan vi … or Dessuten kan vi … A bare comma between two main clauses is a comma splice and is not recommended.

What’s the difference between i tillegg, i tillegg til, and dessuten?

i tillegg = “in addition,” used as a sentence adverbial: I tillegg kan vi dele prisen.
i tillegg til must be followed by what’s being added: I tillegg til rabatten fikk vi gratis frakt.
dessuten is a near-synonym of i tillegg as a sentence adverb: Dessuten kan vi dele prisen.

Why is it det er mulig å … and not det er mulig for å …?

Use det er mulig å + infinitive. For å means “in order to,” so det er mulig for å … is wrong here. If you want to name who it’s possible for, use for + person: Det er mulig for oss å få rabatt.

When do I use å vs og?

å = the infinitive marker “to”: Det er mulig å få rabatt.
og = “and”: Det er mulig og billig. They’re not interchangeable.

Why no article before rabatt? Why not å få en rabatt?

The idiomatic expression is å få rabatt (to get a discount) with no article when speaking generally. Use the article when specifying a particular discount: å få en rabatt på 20 prosent, en studentrabatt. You can also say å få avslag (a reduction).

Can I say dele regningen instead of dele prisen? What about dele på prisen?

dele regningen is very common for splitting a restaurant bill: Skal vi dele regningen?
dele prisen/kostnaden works well when sharing the cost of an item.
dele på prisen/regningen is common in everyday speech and emphasizes dividing among people. In formal writing, plain dele is often preferred.

Why is it prisen (definite) and not just pris?

Norwegian marks definiteness with a suffix: pris → prisen (“the price”). You use the definite form because a specific, context-known price is implied (the price of what you’re buying). dele pris would be ungrammatical.

Is det here a dummy subject? Could I say Å få rabatt er mulig instead?

Yes, det is an anticipatory/dummy subject: Det er mulig å …. Å få rabatt er mulig is grammatical but sounds stiff; Norwegian prefers the dummy det here. A natural alternative is Det går an å få rabatt.

Can I rewrite it as Han sier at vi kan få rabatt? Does it change the meaning?

Yes: Han sier at vi kan få rabatt is fine. kan få highlights ability/permission, while det er mulig å få states possibility. In most contexts they’re practically interchangeable.

Where would ikke go in each half of the sentence?

Subclause (after at): Han sier at det ikke er mulig å få rabatt. (adverb before the verb)
Main clause: I tillegg kan vi ikke dele prisen. (finite verb still second, adverb after it)

How does mulig inflect? Why not muligt?

Adjectives ending in -ig don’t take a neuter -t. Forms:

Singular: mulig (both common and neuter: et mulig problem)
Plural/definite: mulige (de mulige løsningene) So not muligt.

Key verb forms here?

si (to say): pres. sier, past sa, perfect har sagt
få (to get): pres. får, past fikk, perfect har fått
dele (to split/share): pres. deler, past delte, perfect har delt
kunne (can): pres. kan, past kunne, perfect har kunnet

If I want to make a suggestion, is Vi kan dele prisen the best choice?

It’s fine, but suggestion-like alternatives are common:

Skal vi dele prisen? (Shall we split the cost?)
Kunne vi dele prisen? (More polite/tentative)
La oss dele prisen. (Let’s split the cost)

Should there be a comma before at in Han sier at …?

No. You don’t put a comma before at in this construction: Han sier at det er mulig … is correct; Han sier, at … is wrong in Norwegian.