Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Etter parkeringsboten skriver han i dagboken at han skal velge en billigere parkeringsplass neste gang. - After the parking fine he writes in the diary that he will choose a cheaper parking space next time.

we’re referring to a specific ticket that has already happened and is known in the context. That’s why the definite form parkeringsboten (the parking ticket) is used.

If you said:

Etter en parkeringsbot skriver han …

it would sound more general, like “After getting a parking ticket (whenever that happens), he writes…” – more like a rule or habit, not a specific event.

What gender is parkeringsbot, and how do its forms work?

Parkeringsbot is a feminine noun (also usable as common gender in Bokmål).

The basic forms are:

Indefinite singular: en parkeringsbot / ei parkeringsbot
Definite singular: parkeringsboten / parkeringsbota
Indefinite plural: parkeringsbøter
Definite plural: parkeringsbøtene

In standard written Bokmål, en parkeringsbot – parkeringsboten is very common.
In more spoken or dialect-influenced Bokmål, you’ll also see ei parkeringsbot – parkeringsbota.

In your sentence, parkeringsboten is the definite form using en as the article pattern.

Why does the sentence start with Etter parkeringsboten and then put the verb skriver second?

Norwegian main clauses follow the V2 rule (verb in second position):

One element (subject, time expression, place, etc.) comes first.
The finite verb comes second.
The rest follows.

So:

Han skriver i dagboken …
- Subject (han) first, verb (skriver) second.

If we move a time expression to the front:

Etter parkeringsboten skriver han i dagboken …
- First element: Etter parkeringsboten
- Second element (must be the verb): skriver
- Then subject: han

English: After the parking ticket, he writes in the diary…
Norwegian still keeps the finite verb in the second position, not after the subject the way English does here.

Why is it i dagboken and not something like på dagboken or i dagbok?

Two things are happening:

Preposition:
- With dagbok, you almost always use i (in):
  - skrive i dagboken = write in the diary
    Using på dagboken would sound like writing on the cover of the diary, not inside it.
Definiteness:
- en dagbok = a diary
- dagboken = the diary

Here, the diary is understood as his specific diary, so the definite form dagboken is natural:

skriver han i dagboken = he writes in the diary (his diary)

Why is han repeated in at han skal velge…? Why not just at skal velge…?

Norwegian always needs an explicit subject in finite clauses, including subordinate clauses. You cannot drop the subject the way some languages do.

So:

at han skal velge … = that he will choose …
❌ at skal velge … = incorrect (no subject)

Even if the subject is already mentioned in the main clause (han skriver), you must repeat it in the subordinate clause:

… skriver han i dagboken at han skal velge …
… he writes in the diary that he will choose …

Why is skal used here and not vil or kommer til å for the future meaning?

Norwegian has several ways to talk about the future:

skal + infinitive
vil + infinitive
kommer til å + infinitive
or just the present tense, depending on context

Skal often expresses:

an intention or plan
a decision about the future

In:

… at han skal velge en billigere parkeringsplass neste gang.

skal velge suggests a kind of decision/plan: he has decided that next time he will pick a cheaper place.

Alternatives and nuances:

vil velge – more like “wants to choose / will choose (based on will)”
kommer til å velge – more neutral prediction: “is going to choose / will end up choosing”

Skal fits well because he is deciding this while writing in the diary.

Why is there no å in skal velge? I thought infinitives usually need å.

You’re right that infinitives normally take å, for example:

å velge = to choose
å spise = to eat

But after certain modal or semi-modal verbs, å is dropped:

skal velge (not skal å velge)
kan gjøre (not kan å gjøre)
må gå (not må å gå)
vil prøve (not vil å prøve)

So the pattern is:

han skal velge
han vil velge
han må velge

All without å.

How does billigere work, and could you say mer billig instead?

Billig is an adjective meaning cheap.

Comparative and superlative are formed like this:

Positive: billig = cheap
Comparative: billigere = cheaper
Superlative: billigst = cheapest

Norwegian prefers -ere / -est endings for most short, common adjectives. You normally don’t say mer billig.

So:

en billigere parkeringsplass = a cheaper parking space

Using mer billig would sound unnatural or wrong here.

What exactly is parkeringsplass, and why is there an s in the middle?

Parkeringsplass is a compound noun:

parkering = parking
plass = place, spot, space

Together: parkeringsplass = parking space / parking spot / parking area.

The -s- in the middle is a linking element that often appears in Norwegian compound nouns, especially when the first part is a noun:

parkeringsbot = parking + fine
parkeringshus = parking + house (parking garage)
arbeidsplass = work + place (workplace)

So parkeringsplass is the natural compound meaning “place for parking”.

Why is neste gang used instead of something like neste tid or just neste?

In Norwegian, neste gang is an established expression meaning next time.

neste = next
gang = time, occasion (in this sense)

Examples:

Neste gang skal jeg komme tidligere.
= Next time I will come earlier.

Tid means time in a more general/abstract sense: klokkeslett, år, periode, tid generelt.
For “next time (this happens)”, you say neste gang, not neste tid.

So:

… en billigere parkeringsplass neste gang.
= … a cheaper parking place next time.

Why is neste gang placed at the end of the clause and not earlier?

In the subordinate clause:

… at han skal velge en billigere parkeringsplass neste gang.

the normal, neutral word order is:

Subject: han
Verb: skal velge
Object: en billigere parkeringsplass
Time adverbial: neste gang

Norwegian often places time expressions (like i morgen, neste gang, snart) after the object in a subordinate clause.

You could say:

… at han neste gang skal velge en billigere parkeringsplass.

This is also grammatically correct, but it sounds more marked/emphatic and slightly less neutral than putting neste gang at the end.

Why is skriver in the present tense? Could it be skrev instead?

Both skriver (present) and skrev (past) are possible, but the meaning changes:

skriver han i dagboken
= he writes in the diary (either habitual, or “now, as we speak / in this story now”)
skrev han i dagboken
= he wrote in the diary (a completed action in the past)

In your sentence:

Etter parkeringsboten skriver han i dagboken at …

this likely describes what he is doing at that point in the story: after getting the parking ticket, he (now) writes in his diary. If we’re telling a story in the historical present, skriver is very natural.

If the whole context is clearly past narrative, skrev would tell you it all happened in the past:

Etter parkeringsboten skrev han i dagboken at han skulle velge …
(Then both clauses are clearly past.)

Could you also say Etter at han fikk parkeringsbot, skriver han … instead of Etter parkeringsboten?

Yes, that’s a good alternative, and it’s very natural:

Etter parkeringsboten skriver han …
= After the parking ticket, he writes …
Etter at han fikk parkeringsbot, skriver han …
= After he got a parking ticket, he writes …

Differences:

Etter parkeringsboten uses a noun phrase (“after the parking ticket”)
Etter at han fikk parkeringsbot uses a clause with etter at (“after he got …”)

Both are correct. The etter at + clause construction is often more explicit about what happened and can be easier to understand for learners because it matches the English structure more closely.