Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Beskrivelsen av smerten i rapporten er så presis at legen forstår problemet raskt. - The description of the pain in the report is so precise that the doctor understands the problem quickly.

beskrivelsen av smerten literally: the description of the pain
- beskrivelsen = the description (definite form)
- av = of
- smerten = the pain (definite form)
- This “X av Y” structure is the most natural and common way to say “the description of the pain” in modern Norwegian.
smertens beskrivelse literally: the pain’s description
- This is the s-genitive form, often more formal, literary, or stylistically heavy.
- It’s used, but less frequently in everyday language in cases like this.

So beskrivelsen av smerten is simply the most natural everyday phrasing.

Why are both beskrivelsen and smerten in the definite form?

Definiteness in Norwegian is shown mainly with endings:

beskrivelse → beskrivelsen = the description
smerte → smerten = the pain

We use the definite form in this sentence because:

beskrivelsen: The speaker is referring to a particular, known description (the one in the report), not just any description.
smerten: It’s also a specific pain, already known from context (for example, the patient’s pain).

In X av Y structures, when Y is something specific, it normally also takes the definite form:

beskrivelsen av smerten = the (specific) description of the (specific) pain
bildet av huset = the picture of the house
forklaringen av problemet = the explanation of the problem

Why is it av smerten and not om smerten?

av in this context corresponds to English of:
- beskrivelsen av smerten = the description of the pain
- It expresses a close relationship: “the description belonging to / about this exact pain.”
om usually corresponds to English about:
- en tekst om smerte = a text about pain
- en samtale om smerte = a conversation about pain

You could say en beskrivelse av smerten (correct, natural), but en beskrivelse om smerten sounds off in Norwegian. For “description of X”, we almost always use av.

Why is it i rapporten and not på rapporten?

Both i and på can translate to in/on in English, but they’re used differently:

i is used with something you can be inside (physically or logically), or as part of:
- i rapporten = in the report (inside the contents of the report)
- i boka = in the book
- i artikkelen = in the article
på is used more for surfaces, platforms, or some specific fixed expressions:
- på bordet = on the table
- på veggen = on the wall
- på TV = on TV

Since the description appears within the text of the report, i rapporten is the natural choice.

Why is the structure er så presis at used? What does så … at mean?

The pattern så … at means “so … that” and introduces a result:

er så presis at = is so precise that …

Structure:

så
- adjective/adverb + at
  - clause
    - Han er så trøtt at han sovner stående.
      = He is so tired that he falls asleep standing.
    - De kjører så fort at det er farlig.
      = They drive so fast that it is dangerous.

In your sentence:

er så presis → is so precise
at legen forstår problemet raskt → that the doctor understands the problem quickly

Why is the adjective presis not changed to something like presise here?

In predicate position (after er, blir, etc.) the basic form of the adjective is used for singular nouns:

Beskrivelsen … er presis. (singular)
Beskrivelsene … er presise. (plural)

So:

Subject: beskrivelsen (singular, definite)
Verb: er
Adjective: presis (base form for singular subject in predicate)

You only see presise here with plural subjects or when the adjective comes before a definite plural noun:

De presise beskrivelsene = the precise descriptions (definite plural)
Disse beskrivelsene er presise. = These descriptions are precise.

What is the function of at in at legen forstår problemet raskt?

Here at is a subordinating conjunction meaning that (introducing a subordinate clause):

at legen forstår problemet raskt
= that the doctor understands the problem quickly

So at:

connects the result clause to så presis (so precise)
marks the beginning of a subordinate clause with its own subject and verb:
- subject: legen
- verb: forstår

Norwegian at in this usage is directly parallel to English that in sentences like:
It is so precise that the doctor understands the problem quickly.

Why is the word order legen forstår problemet raskt and not something like legen raskt forstår problemet?

In a subordinate clause introduced by at, the normal word order is:

Subject
Verb
(Object)
(Adverbials)

So:

Subject: legen
Verb: forstår
Object: problemet
Adverb: raskt

→ at legen forstår problemet raskt

legen raskt forstår problemet is technically possible but sounds marked/unusual and would put extra emphasis on raskt. The neutral, natural word order puts raskt after the object in this sentence.

Why is problemet in the definite form?

problem → problemet = the problem

It’s definite because we are talking about a specific, known problem:

The problem that the pain description refers to.
From context, both speaker and listener know which problem (the patient’s issue).

Norwegian tends to use definite forms where English might say the or even sometimes where English might use no article. Here it lines up with English: the problem → problemet.

What is the difference between legen and doktoren?

Both can mean the doctor, but there is a nuance:

legen
- From lege = medical doctor.
- Very common and neutral in everyday Norwegian for a physician.
doktoren
- From doktor = someone with a doctorate; can also mean doctor in some contexts.
- As medical doctor, it is understood, but legen is usually more natural.
- doktor can also be an academic title (PhD).

In this sentence, legen is the standard, idiomatic choice for the doctor (as a physician).

Is there a difference between forstår and skjønner here?

Both can be translated as understands, but they differ slightly:

forstår (from forstå)
- Slightly more neutral/formal, very common in both spoken and written language.
- Works well in professional contexts like medicine.
skjønner (from skjønne)
- Often a bit more colloquial or informal.
- Very common in speech: Jeg skjønner = I get it.

In your sentence, forstår fits well with the more formal tone of rapporten and beskrivelsen.
… at legen skjønner problemet raskt would be understood, but sounds more informal.

Why is raskt at the end, and what does it modify exactly?

raskt = quickly, the adverb form of rask (fast).

It modifies the verb phrase, describing how the doctor understands the problem:
- forstår problemet raskt = understands the problem quickly

Word order:

In this clause, the most natural place for a manner adverb (raskt) is after the object problemet:
- at legen forstår problemet raskt

Other positions (like at legen raskt forstår problemet) are possible but either sound marked or put unusual emphasis on raskt. The sentence as given is the neutral, standard word order.

Can I say smerten without an article in Norwegian like I can say pain without an article in English?

Norwegian and English differ here:

English often uses pain as an uncountable noun without an article:
- Pain is terrible.
In Norwegian, smerte is typically treated as a countable noun:
- Smerte er forferdelig. (possible, more abstract, general statement)
- More often:
  - Smerten er forferdelig. = The pain is terrible.
  - Jeg har smerter. = I have pains / I am in pain.

In beskrivelsen av smerten, we’re talking about the specific pain the patient has, so the pain → smerten (definite).

Can I move i rapporten somewhere else in the sentence, and how would that affect the meaning?

The neutral word order is:

Beskrivelsen av smerten i rapporten er så presis at …

Here i rapporten clearly attaches to beskrivelsen av smerten:
→ The description of the pain in the report.

Other possibilities:

I rapporten er beskrivelsen av smerten så presis at legen …
- Focuses more on in the report as the starting point; still correct.
- Emphasizes where this description appears.
Beskrivelsen i rapporten av smerten er så presis at …
- Grammatically possible but sounds clunkier and less natural.

In normal speech and writing, the original version is the cleanest and most natural.