Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Det er grunnleggende viktig at vi respekterer hverandres tid. - It is fundamentally important that we respect each other’s time.

Det er grunnleggende viktig at … = It is fundamentally important that …
Dette er grunnleggende viktig would mean This is fundamentally important, referring to some specific thing just mentioned.

Here, we’re not pointing to a concrete “this”; we’re making a general statement. So Norwegian uses det as a formal subject, just like English uses it.

What exactly does grunnleggende mean here, and how is it different from veldig or svært?

Grunnleggende literally comes from grunnlag (foundation, basis) and means something like:

fundamental(ly)
basic, at the most basic level
essential(ly)

So:

Det er grunnleggende viktig …
≈ It is fundamentally important …
(important on a basic, foundational level)

Compared to other intensifiers:

veldig viktig / svært viktig = very important (just strong degree)
grunnleggende viktig = fundamentally important (important in principle, at the core)

It’s more about “important at the base/foundation” than just “very very important.”

Why do we say grunnleggende viktig and not something like grunnleggende viktige or viktigt?

Two points:

Adjective form of “viktig”
In Bokmål, viktig does not take a -t in the neuter singular (unlike adjectives like stor → stort).
- Det er viktig. (neuter, singular)
- There is no form viktigt in Norwegian Bokmål (that’s Swedish).
Grunnleggende as an invariable form
Grunnleggende is an adjective that already ends in -e and is the same for all genders, numbers, and definiteness:
- en grunnleggende idé
- et grunnleggende prinsipp
- flere grunnleggende verdier

In Det er grunnleggende viktig, you have two adjectives together:

grunnleggende (used adverb‑like here)
viktig

The phrase basically means “fundamentally important,” and both words are in their normal base forms.

Is grunnleggende here an adjective or an adverb?

Formally, grunnleggende is an adjective, but in this sentence it works adverbially, modifying viktig:

Det er viktig. = It is important.
Det er grunnleggende viktig. = It is fundamentally important.

Norwegian often uses adjectives in this adverb-like way, especially when they end in -e. So you can think of grunnleggende here as functioning like the English adverb “fundamentally.”

Why do we say viktig at and not viktig å in this sentence?

In Norwegian:

viktig at + [finite clause]
viktig å + [infinitive]

Compare:

Det er viktig at vi respekterer hverandres tid.
- at introduces a new clause with a conjugated verb (vi respekterer).
- Literally: It is important that we respect each other’s time.
Det er viktig å respektere hverandres tid.
- å is the infinitive marker, followed by respektere (infinitive).
- Literally: It is important to respect each other’s time.

Both are correct but slightly different structures:

viktig at + subject + finite verb
viktig å + infinitive

Why is it vi respekterer and not vi respektere or å respektere after at?

After at you need a finite verb (a verb that is conjugated for tense and subject), just like English “that we respect”, not “that we to respect.”

So:

at vi respekterer = that we respect
- respekterer is present tense, finite form.
å respektere = to respect
- respektere is the infinitive, which you’d use after å, not at.

Therefore:

Det er viktig at vi respekterer … ✅
Det er viktig at vi respektere … ❌
Det er viktig å respektere … ✅ (different structure, no at here)

What does hverandres mean exactly, and how is it formed?

Hverandres is the possessive (genitive) form of hverandre.

hverandre = each other / one another
hverandres = each other’s / one another’s

So:

vi respekterer hverandre
= we respect each other
vi respekterer hverandres tid
= we respect each other’s time

Grammatically, you can think of it as:

hverandre + s → hverandres

Could I say hverandre sin tid instead of hverandres tid?

You will hear hverandre sin/sitt/sine in spoken Norwegian, but:

hverandres tid is the standard, written, and stylistically better form.
hverandre sin tid is more colloquial and often considered less correct in formal writing.

So in a sentence like this, which sounds fairly neutral or formal, hverandres tid is the best choice.

Why is it hverandres tid and not tiden (with the definite article)?

Tid can be both definite (tiden) and indefinite (tid) depending on meaning:

hverandres tid = each other’s time (their time in general; not a specific block)
hverandres tid is almost always used without the article in this kind of general statement.

If you said hverandres tiden, it would be ungrammatical. The possessive hverandres already “locks” the noun phrase; you don’t add the definite article on top of that.

So:

hverandres tid ✅
hverandres tiden ❌

Could we move grunnleggende somewhere else in the sentence, like Det er viktig at vi grunnleggende respekterer hverandres tid?

That word order is technically possible but sounds unnatural and changes the feel of the sentence.

Det er grunnleggende viktig at vi respekterer hverandres tid.
→ grunnleggende modifies viktig (fundamentally important).
Det er viktig at vi grunnleggende respekterer hverandres tid.
→ now grunnleggende seems to modify respekterer, as if it meant “we basically / fundamentally respect”, which is odd.

The intended meaning is that the importance is fundamental, not that the respect is fundamental in some technical sense. So the natural position is:

grunnleggende viktig (kept as a unit)

Is this sentence formal, informal, or neutral in style?

The sentence is neutral to slightly formal:

The vocabulary (grunnleggende viktig, respekterer, hverandres tid) is normal, not slang.
You could say this in:
- a meeting,
- an email,
- a presentation,
- or everyday conversation.

If you wanted it more casual, you might drop grunnleggende and just say:

Det er viktig at vi respekterer hverandres tid.
(still completely natural in all contexts)

Can I also say Det er viktig å respektere hverandres tid? Is there any difference?

Yes, that sentence is perfectly correct:

Det er viktig å respektere hverandres tid.
= It is important to respect each other’s time.

Difference in structure:

Det er viktig at vi respekterer hverandres tid.
- Focuses on “we” specifically and uses a finite clause (vi respekterer).
Det er viktig å respektere hverandres tid.
- More general, like a rule or principle: “It’s important to respect each other’s time (in general).”

In many contexts they’re interchangeable, but the “at vi …” version points more directly at us as the ones who must do this.