Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Sjefen kritiserer planen i møtet. - The boss criticizes the plan in the meeting.

In the sentence, we’re clearly talking about a particular, known boss (for example, our boss at work), so Norwegian uses the definite form sjefen.

Why is it planen and not en plan?

Same rule as with sjefen: the noun is definite.

plan = plan (general)
en plan = a plan
planen = the plan

The sentence refers to a specific plan that the boss and others already know about, so Norwegian uses the definite form planen (the plan).

Why do we say planen and not sin plan (his/her plan)?

Norwegian uses sin/sitt/sine when you want to emphasize that the subject owns something, especially to distinguish from someone else’s:

Sjefen kritiserer planen.
→ The boss criticizes the plan (which could be anyone’s).
Sjefen kritiserer sin plan.
→ The boss criticizes his/her own plan.

So planen is neutral: it doesn’t say whose plan it is, just that it’s a specific, known plan. You would use sin plan if you specifically want to highlight that the boss is criticizing their own plan.

What tense is kritiserer, and what are the other main forms of this verb?

Kritiserer is present tense.

The main forms of å kritisere (to criticize) are:

å kritisere – infinitive
kritiserer – present (criticizes / is criticizing)
kritiserte – simple past (criticized)
har kritisert – present perfect (has criticized)

So:

Sjefen kritiserer planen i møtet.
→ The boss criticizes / is criticizing the plan in the meeting.

Norwegian uses the same present form for both simple present and the English -ing form, depending on context.

Is the word order Sjefen kritiserer planen i møtet fixed, or can I move i møtet?

Norwegian word order is fairly flexible at the end of the sentence.

The standard neutral order here is:

Sjefen kritiserer planen i møtet.

You can also move i møtet to the front for emphasis on the meeting:

I møtet kritiserer sjefen planen.
(In the meeting, the boss criticizes the plan.)

What you normally don’t do is stick i møtet between the verb and the object:

✗ Sjefen kritiserer i møtet planen. (sounds wrong/very unnatural)

So: keep verb + object together, and place time/place adverbials like i møtet either at the end or at the start of the clause.

Why is it i møtet and not på møtet? Are both possible?

Both i møtet and på møtet are used, but with slightly different feel and with some regional variation.

i møtet
- Literally in the meeting, often understood as during the meeting.
- Focuses a bit more on what happens while the meeting is taking place.
på møtet
- Literally at the meeting.
- Very common in spoken Norwegian, especially in some regions.
- Focuses more on the meeting as an event/location.

In your sentence, i møtet sounds like: while the meeting is going on, the boss criticizes the plan.
På møtet would usually also be acceptable, and many speakers wouldn’t feel much difference in everyday use.

What exactly does i møtet mean here? Is it “in the meeting” or “during the meeting”?

Literally, i møtet means in the meeting, but in this context it is best understood as during the meeting.

So the meaning is: The boss criticizes the plan during the meeting (not before or after).
It’s not about being physically inside the meeting room, but about the time and context of the action.

What is the gender and pattern of møte, and why is it møtet and not møten?

Møte (meeting) is a neuter noun in Norwegian.

For neuter nouns, the definite singular ending is -et:

et møte – a meeting (indefinite, neuter)
møtet – the meeting (definite, neuter)

So you say i møtet (in the meeting).

-en is the typical definite ending for masculine nouns, e.g.:

en bil → bilen (a car → the car)

Since møte is neuter, møten would be incorrect.

How do we know that planen is the object and sjefen is the subject?

Mainly from word order and meaning:

Standard word order in a simple Norwegian statement is:
- Subject – Verb – Object
  → Sjefen (subject) kritiserer (verb) planen (object).
Both sjefen and planen are definite, so endings don’t tell us which is subject and which is object. We rely on:
- The typical pattern “X criticizes Y”.
- The fact that Norwegian usually puts the subject before the verb in main clauses.

You would need a very marked context to read it any other way; for normal use, the first noun phrase before the verb is the subject.

Where would ikke (not) go if I want to say “The boss does not criticize the plan in the meeting”?

The usual place for ikke is after the verb and before the object:

Sjefen kritiserer ikke planen i møtet.
→ The boss does not criticize the plan in the meeting.

If you want to negate the whole idea including the meeting, you could also move i møtet:

Sjefen kritiserer planen ikke i møtet, men etterpå.
→ The boss criticizes the plan not in the meeting, but afterwards.

But the neutral, simple negation is:

Sjefen kritiserer ikke planen i møtet.

How would I say “The boss is criticizing the plan in the meeting (right now)”?

You use exactly the same form:

Sjefen kritiserer planen i møtet.

Norwegian usually doesn’t have a separate continuous/progressive form (-ing form) like English. The present tense kritiserer can mean both:

criticizes (in general)
is criticizing (right now)

Context tells you which meaning is intended.

How do you pronounce sjefen, kritiserer, and møtet?

Very roughly (using English-like hints):

sjefen
- sj = like the “sh” in ship, but farther back in the mouth
- je ≈ yeh
- fen ≈ fen in fen-.
- Whole word: roughly “SHYEH-fen” (with one clear stress on the first syllable).
kritiserer
- kri ≈ kree
- ti often sounds like ti in tea
- se ≈ seh
- rer ≈ rehr (r is tapped or rolled)
- Whole word: roughly “kree-tee-SEH-rer”, with main stress on se.
møtet
- ø is a rounded vowel, somewhere between the e in her and the u in burn (but with rounded lips).
- te ≈ teh
- Final t is usually pronounced.
- Whole word: roughly “MØH-teht” (stress on mø).

For accurate pronunciation, listening to native audio (e.g. online dictionaries or TTS) helps a lot.