Learn Hardcore Norwegian: La oss skru på lyset, ellers blir rommet for mørkt til å lese. - Let’s turn on the light, otherwise the room becomes too dark to read.

La oss means let’s (let us). La is the imperative of the verb å la (to let), and it takes an object pronoun, so you must use oss (us), not the subject pronoun vi (we).

Pattern: La oss + infinitive → La oss skru på lyset.
Negative: La oss ikke + infinitive → La oss ikke glemme boka.
Other persons: La meg… (Let me…), La ham/henne… (Let him/her…).

Could I say Skal vi skru på lyset? instead of La oss skru på lyset? What’s the difference?

Yes. Both are natural suggestions.

La oss… is a direct proposal: “Let’s…”
Skal vi…? is a softer, more tentative suggestion: “Shall we…?”
You might also hear Kan vi…? (Can we…?) as an even gentler suggestion.

Is skru på the only way to say “turn on” here? What about slå på or tenne?

All three can work, with slight nuances:

skru på: turn/switch on (common for devices/lights; implies using a switch/knob). → Skru på lyset.
slå på: very common, general “turn on” for electrical things. → Slå på lyset.
tenne: “light/ignite”; also used for lights and candles. → Tenn lyset. Turning off:
skru av / slå av (devices), slukke (lights/flames): Slukk lyset.

Why is it skru på lyset and not skru lyset på? How do particle verbs place objects?

With verb–particle combinations:

With a noun object, the default is verb + particle + object: skru på lyset, slå av TV-en.
With a pronoun object, the pronoun goes between verb and particle: Skru det på. Slå den av.
Verb + object + particle (e.g., skru lyset på) is possible but less common; you may see it for emphasis or rhythm.

Why are lyset and rommet in the definite form?

Because we’re talking about specific, contextually known things:

lyset = “the light” (the illumination in the room)
rommet = “the room” (the one we’re in) Norwegian uses the definite form for such context-given items, much like English does in “turn on the light.” Note that lys can mean general “light” (mass) or “a light”/“a candle” (count); here it’s the general illumination.

Why is it mørkt and not mørk?

Agreement. Predicative adjectives agree with the subject’s gender/number:

et rom → rommet (neuter) → rommet er/blir mørkt
en stue (common gender) → stua er/blir mørk
Plural → rommene er/blir mørke So with rommet (neuter), you need mørkt.

How does the pattern for + adjective + til å + infinitive work?

It means “too … to …” and is very productive:

for mørkt til å lese = too dark to read
for tung til å løfte = too heavy to lift
for kaldt til å bade = too cold to swim You can intensify with altfor: altfor mørkt (way too dark). Alternative with a finite clause: Rommet er for mørkt til at jeg kan lese.

Why not for å lese here? When do I use til å vs for å?

for å + infinitive expresses purpose (“in order to”):
- Vi skrur på lyset for å lese. (We turn on the light in order to read.)
for + adj + til å + infinitive expresses an excessive degree (“too … to …”):
- Det er for mørkt til å lese. (It’s too dark to read.) Some adjectives take just å (no til) in other patterns: lett å lese, vanskelig å se; but with the “too … to …” pattern, use til å.

Why is there a comma before ellers, and why does the verb come right after ellers?

The sentence has two main clauses; Norwegian puts a comma between them: …, ellers …
Ellers is a linking adverb meaning “otherwise.” Main clauses follow the V2 rule (the finite verb is in second position). Since Ellers is in first position, the verb blir must come next: Ellers blir rommet … (not “Ellers rommet blir …”).

Does blir here indicate the future? Could I say vil bli or kommer til å bli?

Yes. Norwegian often uses the present tense for predictable future outcomes:

… ellers blir rommet … ≈ “… otherwise the room will (become) …” You can also say:
… ellers vil rommet bli … (more formal/literary)
… ellers kommer rommet til å bli … (very common for predictions) All are correct; the original is natural and concise.

Could I use er instead of blir?

That would change the meaning:

… ellers er rommet for mørkt … = it is already too dark now.
… ellers blir rommet for mørkt … = it will become too dark (as a consequence). The original sentence warns about what will happen if we don’t turn on the light.

Can I say Ellers blir det for mørkt til å lese instead of mentioning rommet?

Yes. Det can act as an impersonal subject:

Ellers blir det for mørkt til å lese. This talks about the general situation; rommet makes the location explicit. Both are fine.

What’s the difference between lyset, lampen/lampa, and lysene here?

lyset: the light/illumination in the room (generic) → Skru på lyset.
lampen/lampa: the specific lamp → Skru på lampen/lampa.
lysene: the lights (plural light sources) → Slå på lysene. Choose based on what you literally mean.

Can I replace ellers with something like “if not”?

Yes:

Hvis ikke, blir rommet for mørkt til å lese.
Full form: Hvis vi ikke skrur på lyset, blir rommet … Colloquially you may also hear Ellers så blir … (the extra så is optional and conversational).

Any quick pronunciation tips for key words?

y in lyset is a front rounded vowel (like French “u”): try saying English “ee” while rounding your lips.
ø in mørkt is mid front rounded (like French “eu”): think of English “bird” but with rounded lips.
skru has u pronounced as the Norwegian u/ʉ sound (also front rounded).
In many dialects, rs (as in ellers) merges to a retroflex “sh”-like sound.