Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Ordføreren sier at både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet er grunnleggende verdier i kommunen. - The mayor says that both the right to vote and freedom of speech are fundamental values in the municipality.

Main clause: Ordføreren sier = The mayor says
Subordinate clause: (at) både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet er grunnleggende verdier i kommunen = (that) both the right to vote and freedom of expression are fundamental values in the municipality

Just like in English, you could sometimes drop “that” in meaning, but in Norwegian you normally keep at in writing:
Ordføreren sier at … = The mayor says that …

Why is there no comma before at here?

Modern Norwegian punctuation normally does not use a comma before at when it introduces a subordinate clause that functions as the object of the verb.

So you write:

Ordføreren sier at …
not
~~Ordføreren sier, at …~~

In older Norwegian (and in Danish), you sometimes see a comma there, but in contemporary Norwegian this comma is usually omitted.

What does både … og … mean, and how is it different from just og?

både … og … means “both … and …”.

stemmerett og ytringsfrihet = the right to vote and freedom of expression
både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet = both the right to vote and freedom of expression

Using både emphasizes that each of the listed items is included. It adds a small nuance of completeness or emphasis, similar to English “both A and B” instead of just “A and B”.

What part of speech is både, and where does it go in the sentence?

både is a coordinating particle used together with og. It always appears before the first coordinated element.

Pattern: både X og Y
In our sentence: både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet

You cannot move både to just anywhere; it must be paired clearly with og so that it’s obvious which two elements are being connected.

Why are stemmerett and ytringsfrihet used without an article (no en, en, den, etc.)?

In Norwegian, abstract and general concepts are often used without an article when you talk about them in a general sense:

Stemmerett (voting right, suffrage)
Ytringsfrihet (freedom of expression)

Here we’re talking about these concepts in general, not specific, identifiable instances (like “the specific voting right in this case”). That’s why they appear in bare form, with no en/ei/et and no definite ending.

This is similar to English using no article for general ideas:
Freedom is important. Voting rights are fundamental.

Why is the verb er (are) and not er repeated or something like er … er …?

In Norwegian, just like in English, when you have a compound subject joined by både … og …, you normally use one verb:

både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet er …
= both the right to vote and freedom of expression are …

You don’t repeat the verb for each element:

~~både stemmerett er … og ytringsfrihet er …~~ (grammatical but very clumsy, and not how you’d say it here)

So er agrees with the combined subject både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet (treated as plural, like “A and B are …”).

Why is it grunnleggende verdier and not grunnleggende verdi?

Because the sentence refers to two things (stemmerett and ytringsfrihet), it uses the plural of “value”:

verdi = value (singular)
verdier = values (plural)

So:
både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet er grunnleggende verdier
= both the right to vote and freedom of expression are fundamental values

If there were only one thing, you’d use the singular:
Stemmerett er en grunnleggende verdi.
The right to vote is a fundamental value.

What is the difference between grunnleggende verdier and grunnleggende verdiene?

grunnleggende verdier = fundamental values (indefinite plural, general)
grunnleggende verdiene = the fundamental values (definite plural, specific)

In the sentence, we’re describing what kind of values they are in general, so we use the indefinite plural.

If you were referring to some already known set of values, you might use the definite:

De grunnleggende verdiene i Norge er nedfelt i grunnloven.
The fundamental values in Norway are laid down in the constitution.

Why is it i kommunen and not i kommune?

Again, Norwegian marks definiteness with a suffix:

en kommune = a municipality
kommunen = the municipality

i kommunen means “in the municipality”, referring to this specific municipality (the one the mayor belongs to). Using i kommune (in municipality) would be ungrammatical in this context because you need the definite form for a specific, known municipality.

So:
… grunnleggende verdier i kommunen.
= … fundamental values in the municipality.

Why is the preposition i used with kommunen instead of på?

With places like by (city), kommune (municipality), land (country), Norwegian typically uses i to mean “in”:

i byen = in the city
i kommunen = in the municipality
i landet = in the country

på is often used with islands, squares, surfaces, and some fixed expressions, for example:

på øya = on the island
på torget = on the square
på skolen = at school (idiomatic)

For a municipality, i kommunen is the normal, idiomatic choice.

What exactly does ytringsfrihet consist of, literally?

ytringsfrihet is a compound:

ytring = expression, utterance (from the verb å ytre, to express, to utter)
frihet = freedom

So literally, ytringsfrihet = “expression-freedom”, i.e. freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

What about stemmerett – what does that word literally mean?

stemmerett is also a compound:

stemme = vote (also “voice”, but here: “vote”)
rett = right

So literally, stemmerett is “vote-right”, i.e. the right to vote, suffrage.

How does word order work in the at-clause: at både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet er grunnleggende verdier i kommunen?

In Norwegian subordinate clauses (after at, fordi, hvis, etc.), the typical neutral word order is:

Subject – (adverbs) – Verb – Object/Complement

In this clause:

Subject: både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet
Verb: er
Complement: grunnleggende verdier i kommunen

So the order “… at både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet er grunnleggende verdier i kommunen” is the standard pattern: Subject before Verb.

You cannot invert the verb and subject here as in main clauses:

✔ … at både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet er grunnleggende verdier …
✘ ~~… at er både stemmerett og ytringsfrihet grunnleggende verdier …~~ (ungrammatical)

Could you say begge instead of både in this sentence?

You could rephrase with begge, but the structure changes slightly.

både X og Y = both X and Y (paired construction)
begge = both (pronoun/adjective)

Possible alternative:

Ordføreren sier at stemmerett og ytringsfrihet begge er grunnleggende verdier i kommunen.

Here begge refers back to stemmerett og ytringsfrihet as a pair.
The original sentence with både … og … is a bit more natural and common in this kind of list, but both are grammatical.