Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Det finnes ingen enkel sannhet, men vi prøver å være ærlige i dagboken og i debatten. - There is no simple truth, but we try to be honest in the diary and in the debate.

Det finnes literally means “there exists”. It often emphasizes existence in a more general or abstract way.
- Det finnes ingen enkel sannhet. = There is no simple truth / No simple truth exists.
Det er is more neutral and used for “there is/are” in many everyday situations:
- Det er en bok på bordet. = There is a book on the table.

In this sentence, Det finnes ingen enkel sannhet sounds more natural than Det er ingen enkel sannhet, because we’re talking about the existence (or non-existence) of such a truth in general, not pointing to something specific in the room or situation.

Is finnes a special kind of verb, and how do you conjugate it?

Finnes is the passive/existential form of finne (to find), but it behaves almost like its own verb meaning “to exist / to be found”.

Present tense: finnes
- Det finnes mange bøker om dette. = There are many books about this.
Past tense: fantes
- Det fantes ingen løsning. = There was no solution.

You typically don’t say jeg finnes, du finnes in the sense of “I exist” in everyday language; finnes is mostly used in impersonal sentences with det: Det finnes …

Why is it ingen enkel sannhet and not ingen enkel sannheten?

In Norwegian, after ingen (no / none), the noun stays in the indefinite form, without the attached definite article.

ingen sannhet = no truth
sannhet (indefinite) vs. sannheten (the truth, definite)

So:

✅ ingen enkel sannhet = no simple truth
❌ ingen enkel sannheten (ungrammatical)

The pattern is:

ingen + (adjective) + indefinite noun
- ingen god idé = no good idea
- ingen lett løsning = no easy solution

Why is the adjective enkel singular, but ærlige ends in -e?

Adjectives in Norwegian agree with the noun or pronoun they describe:

enkel describes sannhet (a singular feminine/“common gender” noun)
- Basic forms for adjectives with a common-gender singular noun:
  - en enkel sannhet (an easy/simple truth)
- After ingen, it’s still singular:
  - ingen enkel sannhet
ærlige describes vi (we), which is plural:
- vi er ærlige = we are honest
- barn er ærlige = children are honest

So:

Singular common gender: enkel – en enkel stol
Plural (and also definite singular): enkle – de enkle stolene

Here:

enkel sannhet → singular noun: enkel
vi … ærlige → plural subject: ærlige

Why do we say å være ærlige and not just å være ærlig?

Because the adjective must still agree with the subject, even in an infinitive construction.

The structure is: vi prøver å være + (adjective that agrees with “vi”)
- vi prøver å være ærlige = we try to be honest (we = plural)
- jeg prøver å være ærlig = I try to be honest (I = singular)

So:

jeg → ærlig
han / hun → ærlig
vi / dere / de → ærlige

The presence of å være doesn’t remove agreement; it just puts the verb in the infinitive.

Could you also say vi prøver være ærlige without å?

Yes, in spoken and informal Norwegian you will sometimes hear:

Vi prøver være ærlige.

However, in standard written Bokmål, å is normally kept:

✅ Vi prøver å være ærlige. (recommended in writing)
◇ Vi prøver være ærlige. (more informal / colloquial)

As a learner, it’s safer to always include å after prøve in writing.

Why is it i dagboken with -en at the end? What does that ending mean?

The -en ending is the definite article attached to the noun:

(en) dagbok = a diary (indefinite)
dagboken = the diary (definite)

Norwegian normally adds the definite article to the end of the noun instead of using a separate word like English the:

en bok – boken = a book – the book
en dagbok – dagboken = a diary – the diary

So i dagboken = in the diary.

You could also sometimes say i en dagbok (in a diary), but in this sentence the idea is about a specific diary (the one we keep), so the definite form is natural.

Why is it i debatten instead of just i debatt?

Again, debatt takes the definite ending -en:

(en) debatt = a debate
debatten = the debate

I debatten here refers to the public debate / the ongoing discussion as a more specific, almost institutional thing:

i debatten = in the (public) debate / in debate, as part of the discussion

Saying i debatt is possible in some fixed phrases, but it sounds more like a bare state:

å være i debatt can work in some contexts, but i debatten is the normal way to refer to “in the debate” as something concrete and shared.

Why do we repeat i in i dagboken og i debatten? Could we say i dagboken og debatten?

You could drop the second i in informal speech (i dagboken og debatten), but Norwegian generally likes to repeat prepositions in careful or written style, especially when the two nouns are somewhat different.

i dagboken og i debatten
= in the diary and in the debate

Repeating i makes it clearer that both are separate places/contexts where we try to be honest. It also sounds more balanced and natural in written Norwegian.

Could you say Det er ingen enkel sannhet instead of Det finnes ingen enkel sannhet?

Yes, Det er ingen enkel sannhet is grammatically correct, and people will understand you.

However, the nuance is a bit different:

Det finnes ingen enkel sannhet
→ sounds more existential, general: No simple truth exists (about this topic, in this world, etc.)
Det er ingen enkel sannhet
→ can feel slightly more like you’re judging a particular “truth” or situation: This is no simple truth.

In many contexts they overlap, but Det finnes ingen enkel sannhet is the more idiomatic way to express the general idea that reality is complex.

Why is there a comma before men in ..., men vi prøver …?

In Norwegian, you generally put a comma before coordinating conjunctions like men (but), og (and), for (for/because), eller (or) when they join two main clauses.

Here we have two main clauses:

Det finnes ingen enkel sannhet
vi prøver å være ærlige i dagboken og i debatten

They’re joined by men, so you add a comma:

Det finnes ingen enkel sannhet, men vi prøver å være ærlige …

This is standard comma usage in Norwegian.