Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Et stort økonomisk underskudd kan ta bort alt overskudd og håp. - A large financial deficit can take away all surplus and hope.

Underskudd is a neuter noun, so it takes the neuter indefinite article et.
- et underskudd = a deficit
The adjective must agree with the noun in gender and number, so for a neuter singular noun you use the -t form:
- stor (common gender) → stort (neuter)
- et stort underskudd = a big deficit

So et stort økonomisk underskudd is the correct combination: neuter article et, neuter adjective stort, followed by the noun underskudd.

Why does stort get a -t ending, but økonomisk doesn’t become something like økonomiskt?

For adjectives in front of a neuter singular noun:

Most adjectives add -t in the neuter singular indefinite form:
- et stort hus (a big house)
- et langt brev (a long letter)
But adjectives ending in -sk (like økonomisk) do not take the -t ending:
- et økonomisk problem (an economic problem), not økonomiskt problem

In et stort økonomisk underskudd:

stort has -t because stor is a regular adjective.
økonomisk keeps its form because adjectives ending in -sk are invariant in this position.

Why are there two adjectives in a row (stort økonomisk) before the noun? Is that normal in Norwegian?

Yes, stacking multiple adjectives before a noun is normal in Norwegian, just like in English:

et stort økonomisk underskudd = a large economic deficit
en liten rød bil = a small red car

The usual order is:

Article (et)
Opinion/size/degree adjective (stort)
More specific/descriptive adjective (økonomisk)
Noun (underskudd)

Changing the order to et økonomisk stort underskudd is technically possible but sounds odd and marked; you’d only do that in very special emphasis contexts.

What exactly does økonomisk underskudd mean? Could I just say underskudd?

underskudd = deficit, shortfall (general word)
økonomisk = economic, financial

økonomisk underskudd specifies what kind of deficit it is: a financial/economic one, as opposed to, for example:

søvnunderskudd = sleep deficit
kunnskapsunderskudd = knowledge deficit

You could say only underskudd if the context already makes clear you’re talking about finances. Adding økonomisk removes ambiguity and sounds more formal/precise.

Is underskudd related to overskudd? How do these two words work?

Yes, they are opposites:

underskudd = deficit (literally “under-shoot”)
overskudd = surplus/profit (literally “over-shoot”)

In a financial context:

underskudd → you spend more than you earn.
overskudd → you earn more than you spend (profit, surplus).

In everyday Norwegian, overskudd is also used metaphorically for extra energy/capacity:

Jeg har ikke overskudd til det. = I don’t have the energy for that.

Why is it alt overskudd og håp, with no article in front of overskudd or håp?

Both overskudd and håp are used here as mass/abstract nouns, and Norwegian, like English, usually drops the article in such cases:

alt overskudd = all surplus / all (your) extra energy
håp = hope (in general, not a specific hope)

Compare:

alt vannet = all the water (definite, specific)
alt vann = all water (in general)

Here the sentence means “can take away all surplus and (all) hope in general”, not specific, countable instances of them, so no articles are used.

Could the sentence also say alt overskuddet og håpet? How would that change the meaning?

Yes, grammatically you could say:

Et stort økonomisk underskudd kan ta bort alt overskuddet og håpet.

Differences:

alt overskudd og håp
- more general/abstract
- “all surplus and hope (in general)”
alt overskuddet og håpet
- definite and specific
- “all of the surplus and the hope” (the particular overskudd and håp that we have been talking about)

The original version is more general and sounds more like a broad statement about what a big deficit can do.

Does alt modify both overskudd and håp, or only overskudd?

Formally, alt stands right before overskudd, so it most directly modifies that word.
However, in normal reading and interpretation, alt overskudd og håp will usually be understood as:

“all surplus and (all) hope”

If you want to be explicitly symmetrical, you can say:

… kan ta bort alt overskudd og alt håp.

That version clearly attaches alt to both nouns, but in everyday Norwegian the shorter version is very natural.

What is bort here? Is it like an adverb or a preposition?

In ta bort, bort functions as a particle (often called a particle adverb).

ta = take
bort = away
ta bort = take away, remove

This is a phrasal verb, similar to English “take away” or “take off”, where the verb plus particle together have a specific meaning.

Is there a difference between ta bort and fjerne?

Both can mean to remove, but:

ta bort
- slightly more informal and concrete
- often used in everyday speech
- ta bort flekken (remove the stain), ta bort et kapittel (take out a chapter)
fjerne
- a bit more formal/neutral
- common in writing and formal contexts
- fjerne en svulst, fjerne en lov, fjerne informasjon

In this sentence, kan ta bort alt overskudd og håp could also be kan fjerne alt overskudd og håp, with almost no change in meaning. Ta bort sounds just a bit more colloquial.

Could I say Et stort økonomisk underskudd kan bortta alt overskudd og håp by combining bort and ta into one verb?

No, bortta is not a word in standard Norwegian.

The idea “take away” is expressed as the phrasal verb ta bort (verb + particle), not fused into one verb.
So you should keep it as kan ta bort, not kan bortta.

What’s the basic word order pattern in Et stort økonomisk underskudd kan ta bort alt overskudd og håp?

The main clause structure is:

Subject: Et stort økonomisk underskudd
Verb (modal): kan
Verb (main infinitive): ta
Particle: bort
Object: alt overskudd og håp

So the skeleton is [Subject] + kan + ta + bort + [Object].

Norwegian is a V2 language (the finite verb is in second position), and here:

Et stort økonomisk underskudd occupies the first position.
kan (the finite verb) is second.

Can I move bort to the end and say … kan ta alt overskudd og håp bort?

Yes, that is possible:

… kan ta bort alt overskudd og håp
… kan ta alt overskudd og håp bort

Both are grammatically correct. The version with ta bort together is more common and feels more “tight” as a unit. Putting bort at the end is slightly more marked and can sound a bit more emphatic or stylistic, but it’s perfectly acceptable.

How would this noun phrase change in the plural, for example big economic deficits?

Singular:

et stort økonomisk underskudd = a big economic deficit

Plural indefinite:

store økonomiske underskudd = big economic deficits
- No article (plural indefinite)
- Adjectives take -e: store, økonomiske

Plural definite:

de store økonomiske underskuddene = the big economic deficits
- de = the (plural)
- Adjectives with -e
- Noun with definite plural ending -ene: underskudd → underskuddene (note that underskudd doesn’t change form in the bare plural, only in the definite: flere underskudd, underskuddene).