Learn Hardcore Norwegian: På tavlen skriver læreren: «Sannheten kan være vond, men det er rettferdig å si den.» - On the board the teacher writes: “The truth can be painful, but it is fair to say it.”

Neutral order: Læreren skriver på tavlen. (The subject læreren is first; verb skriver is second.)
In the given sentence, a place expression is moved to the front for emphasis or context:
- På tavlen (1st element)
- skriver (2nd element – the verb, as required by V2)
- læreren (3rd element – the subject)

So we get: På tavlen skriver læreren …

Both Læreren skriver på tavlen and På tavlen skriver læreren are correct. The second one just highlights where the writing happens, making it a natural way to set the scene.

Why is it på tavlen and not på tavle or på tavla?

tavle = a board (indefinite singular)
tavlen = the board (definite singular, more “bookish”/formal Bokmål)
tavla = the board (also definite singular, more colloquial / alternative Bokmål form)

På tavlen literally means on the board. In a textbook or neutral written Bokmål, tavlen is very normal. In everyday speech and informal writing, many people would say på tavla instead.

You would not say på tavle in this context, because you almost always refer to the classroom board, not “on board” in a general sense.

What exactly does tavlen refer to? A blackboard, a whiteboard, or any board?

In modern Norwegian, tavle/tavlen/tavla usually refers to the classroom board in general:

traditional blackboard
whiteboard
smartboard

Context normally makes it clear. If you specifically need “whiteboard”, you can say whiteboard or tavle with more specification, but in school contexts tavlen is just “the board” the teacher writes on.

Why is it læreren (the teacher) and not just en lærer (a teacher)?

Norwegian often uses the definite form to talk about a specific person already known in the context:

læreren = the teacher (the one both speaker and listener have in mind)
en lærer = a teacher (any teacher, one of many, not specified)

In a classroom scene, there is usually one obvious main teacher, so læreren makes sense: it’s that teacher in this situation. If the sentence were talking about some random, unspecified teacher, en lærer skriver på tavlen could be used instead.

Why is there a colon after læreren?

The colon (:) in Norwegian is used much like in English to introduce:

a direct quote
or an explanation / list.

Here it introduces the exact words written on the board:

På tavlen skriver læreren: Sannheten kan være vond, men det er rettferdig å si den.

So the part after the colon is what the teacher writes. This is standard punctuation when introducing a direct quotation or exact wording.

Why are the quotation marks « » used instead of " "?

Norwegian (like many European languages) often uses angle quotes:

« » in Norwegian
Sometimes also „ “ in other languages

In many printed books and formal texts in Norway, « » are the standard quotation marks. However, you will also see English-style " " very often, especially online and in informal writing. Both are accepted; « » just look more typographically “traditional” in Norwegian.

Why is Sannheten capitalized? Are all nouns capitalized in Norwegian like in German?

No. In Norwegian, nouns are not capitalized like in German.

Sannheten is capitalized here only because it is:

the first word of the sentence/quote.

If it appeared in the middle of a sentence, it would be written sannheten. So:

Sannheten kan være vond … (start of sentence → capital S)
… men sannheten kan være vond. (middle of sentence → lower-case s)

Why is it Sannheten (the truth) and not en sannhet (a truth)?

The definite form sannheten is used because the sentence talks about “the truth” in general as a concept, not one of many possible “truths.”

sannhet = truth (as a general noun, or “a truth” with an article)
en sannhet = a (particular) truth
sannheten = the (specific or abstract) truth

Talking about the truth as a moral/ethical thing is normally expressed with the definite form: sannheten.

What does vond mean here, and how is it different from other words like slem, lei, or trist?

vond basically means painful or hurtful; it can be:

physical: Jeg har vondt i hodet. – I have a headache. (literally: I have pain in the head)
emotional: Det var vondt å høre det. – It was painful to hear that.

In this sentence, Sannheten kan være vond implies:

The truth can hurt / can be emotionally painful.

Compared to similar words:

slem = mean, nasty (about a person or action, not about how it feels)
lei = sad / sorry / fed up
trist = sad (emotional mood)

So vond focuses on the painful, hurtful aspect, not just “sad” or “mean.”

What is the difference between rettferdig, rett, and riktig?

All three relate to “right,” but in different senses:

rettferdig = just, fair
- moral / ethical correctness
- Det er rettferdig å si sannheten. – It is fair/just to tell the truth.
rett = right, correct, proper
- can be moral or practical
- Det er rett å hjelpe andre. – It is right to help others.
- Also used in expressions like å ha rett (to be right).
riktig = correct, accurate
- about factual correctness
- Svaret er riktig. – The answer is correct.

In det er rettferdig å si den, the idea is about justice / fairness, so rettferdig is the natural choice.

Why is it kan være and not just er in Sannheten kan være vond?

er = is (always, generally, inherently)
kan være = can be / may be (sometimes, in some situations)

Sannheten kan være vond suggests:

Not all truth is painful.
But in some cases, it can be painful.

If you said Sannheten er vond, it would sound like “The truth is painful (in general),” which is a stronger, more absolute statement. kan være softens it to “can be.”

Why does the sentence say det er rettferdig å si den and not å si sannheten?

Both are possible and correct:

det er rettferdig å si den – it is fair to say it.
det er rettferdig å si sannheten – it is fair to say the truth.

Here, den is a pronoun that refers back to sannheten earlier in the sentence:

Sannheten (common gender noun → den)
… å si den. = to say it (the truth).

Using den avoids repeating sannheten and sounds more natural in this tight sentence. If you want to be explicit or more formal, å si sannheten is also fine.

Why is the pronoun den used and not det in å si den?

In Norwegian, pronouns agree with the grammatical gender of the noun they refer to:

sannhet is common gender (en sannhet, sannheten).
The corresponding pronoun is den (not det, which is neuter).

So:

sannheten → den
bordet (neuter) → det

Therefore: … å si den = to say it (referring to sannheten).

What is happening grammatically in det er rettferdig å si den? What is the function of det?

Here det is dummy/impersonal “it”, just like in English:

Det er vanskelig å lære norsk. – It is hard to learn Norwegian.
Det er hyggelig å se deg. – It is nice to see you.
Det er rettferdig å si den. – It is fair to say it.

Structure:

det = dummy subject
er = verb
rettferdig = predicative adjective
å si den = infinitive clause (what is fair)

This pattern (Det er + adjective + å + verb …) is extremely common and useful in Norwegian.