Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Jeg er for svak til å løfte bordet.

Here for is an intensifier meaning too. So for svak means too weak. You’ll see this pattern a lot: for + adjective (for kald, for tung, for dyr).

Why is it til å and not for å?

til å + infinitive is the standard after the pattern for + adjective to express “too … to …”: for svak til å løfte.
for å + infinitive means “in order to” (purpose): Jeg trener for å bli sterk (I train in order to become strong). Using for å in your sentence would change the meaning and is not idiomatic.

Can I drop til and say Jeg er for svak å løfte bordet?

No. After for + adjective, Norwegian requires til å before the infinitive. Without til, it’s ungrammatical.

What’s the difference between for and altfor?

Both mean “too,” but altfor is stronger: altfor svak = “far too weak,” more emphatic than for svak.

Why is it å and not og?

å marks the infinitive (to lift): å løfte.
og means and. They’re different words and pronunciations. Mixing them up is a very common learner mistake.

How do I pronounce the tricky bits (especially å, ø, sv, and rd in bordet)?

å: like the vowel in English “law” (aw).
ø (in løfte): like French eu in “peu,” or English “bird” but with rounded lips.
sv (in svak): just s + v together, as in “s-vahk.”
bordet: the o is long (like “boor”); in much of Eastern Norwegian, rd merges into a single retroflex sound, so you may hear something like “BOO-reh.” In other areas you’ll hear the full “bor-det.” Both are fine.

Why is it bordet (the table) and not et bord (a table)?

Use the definite form bordet when a specific table is meant (known from context). If you’re speaking in general or about any table, you can use the indefinite: Jeg er for svak til å løfte et bord.

How does the adjective svak inflect? When do I use svak, svakt, svake?

Predicative with a singular subject like jeg: Jeg er svak (no ending).
Attributive before a noun:
- Common gender, singular: en svak mann
- Neuter, singular: et svakt bord
- Any definite noun or any plural: den svake mannen, svake menn
Predicative also agrees with neuter/plural subjects: Bordet er svakt, De er svake.

Why is the verb løfte in the infinitive and not løfter or løftet?

After å, you must use the infinitive: å løfte.

løfter = present tense (lifts/is lifting)
løftet = past tense or past participle (lifted)

Where would negation go, and what does it change? For example: “I’m not too weak to lift the table.”

Place ikke after the finite verb er: Jeg er ikke for svak til å løfte bordet.
This means you deny being too weak; it implies you can lift it.

Is there an alternative with “enough,” like “I’m not strong enough to lift the table”?

Yes: Jeg er ikke sterk nok til å løfte bordet.

for svak til å = too weak to (emphasizes excess weakness)
ikke sterk nok til å = not strong enough to (emphasizes insufficient strength)
Both usually imply inability, but the nuance is slightly different.

Could I say løfte opp bordet? What’s the difference between løfte and løfte opp?

løfte already means lift. løfte opp adds an “upward” nuance or emphasis, often used when you’re lifting something up from a surface. Both are acceptable here, but løfte alone is natural and sufficient.

What are some near-synonyms of løfte, and how do they differ?

løfte: lift (general physical lifting).
bære: carry (bear weight while moving).
heve: raise (more formal/technical, e.g., raise wages; can be physical but less common in everyday speech for picking something up).

Can I replace bordet with a pronoun?

Yes. bord is neuter, so use det: Jeg er for svak til å løfte det.
If the noun were common gender (e.g., stolen “the chair”), you’d use den: …til å løfte den.

Is there anything to know about Bokmål vs. Nynorsk here?

Your sentence is Bokmål. In Nynorsk you’d typically write: Eg er for svak til å lyfte bordet.
Main differences: Eg instead of Jeg, and often lyfte instead of løfte. The structure for … til å is the same.