Log inSign up

Læreren lover at hun skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen.

Læreren lover at hun skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen.
The teacher promises that she will explain the tasks more clearly tomorrow.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Norwegian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Norwegian now

Questions & Answers about Læreren lover at hun skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen.

What is the function of at in this sentence? Is it like English “that”, and can it be left out?

at is a subordinating conjunction that introduces a clause, very close to English that in “The teacher promises that she will explain…”

  • Læreren lover at hun skal forklare …
    = The teacher promises that she will explain …

In standard written Norwegian, at is normally kept in this kind of sentence. In casual speech, some people do drop at after common verbs (like tro, si, vite), but after lover it is most natural and safest for learners to keep at:

  • ✅ Læreren lover at hun skal forklare oppgavene …
  • ❌ Læreren lover hun skal forklare oppgavene … (sounds wrong or at least very odd in standard Norwegian)
Why is the verb lover in the present tense when the explaining will happen tomorrow?

lover is present tense because it describes what is happening now: the teacher is promising (right now).

The future event (explaining the assignments) is inside the at-clause, and that future meaning is carried by skal + infinitive and the time expression i morgen:

  • Læreren lover = The teacher promises / is promising (now)
  • at hun skal forklare oppgavene … i morgen = that she will explain the assignments tomorrow

So the main verb lover is present; the future meaning belongs to the subordinate clause.

What exactly does skal mean here? Is it just a future tense like English will?

Norwegian does not have a special “future tense” form like English will. Instead, it often uses:

  • present tense + time expression
    • Hun forklarer oppgavene i morgen. = She will explain the assignments tomorrow.
  • skal + infinitive
    • Hun skal forklare oppgavene i morgen. = She is going to / will explain the assignments tomorrow.

In this sentence, skal expresses a planned / promised future action. It often has a nuance of intention, plan, or obligation, which fits very well after lover (promises).

What’s the difference between skal and vil in a sentence like this?

Both can refer to the future, but they are not interchangeable in all contexts.

  • skal: plan, arrangement, promise, obligation
    • Hun skal forklare oppgavene i morgen.
      = There is a plan/commitment that she will explain them tomorrow.
  • vil: desire, willingness, or prediction
    • Hun vil forklare oppgavene i morgen.
      = She wants to / is willing to explain them tomorrow, or you are predicting that she will.

After lover (promises), skal is the natural choice:

  • ✅ Læreren lover at hun skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen.
  • ❓ Læreren lover at hun vil forklare … – possible, but sounds less like a firm promise and more like “she wants to explain”.
Why is it skal forklare and not skal forklarer?

After modal verbs like skal, vil, kan, må, bør, Norwegian always uses the infinitive form of the main verb without å:

  • skal forklare (not skal forklarer)
  • kan forklare, må forklare, vil forklare, etc.

Compare:

  • Hun forklarer oppgavene. (simple present: explains / is explaining)
  • Hun skal forklare oppgavene. (is going to explain / will explain)

So the pattern is:
[modal verb] + [infinitive] → skal forklare, not skal forklarer.

Could we say Læreren lover å forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen instead? What is the difference?

Yes, that is also correct:

  • Læreren lover å forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen.
  • Læreren lover at hun skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen.

Both mean roughly: The teacher promises to explain the assignments more clearly tomorrow.

Nuances:

  • lover å + infinitive is shorter and very common. The subject of å forklare is automatically the same as the subject of lover.
  • lover at hun skal + infinitive makes a full clause with its own subject (hun) and auxiliary (skal). It can feel a bit more explicit and “formal”, and the skal can give a slightly stronger sense of commitment/plan.

For everyday use, lover å forklare … is perfectly natural and maybe even more common.

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

The noun is (en) oppgave – an assignment, task, or exercise.

Its basic Bokmål forms are:

  • en oppgave = an assignment
  • oppgaven = the assignment
  • oppgaver = assignments
  • oppgavene = the assignments

So oppgavene is definite plural: the assignments / the tasks.

In this sentence, oppgavene suggests specific, known assignments (for example, the ones the students already have or have seen), not tasks in general.

Why do we use oppgavene (definite) and not just oppgaver (indefinite)?

Norwegian usually uses the definite form when we are talking about specific things that the speaker and listener can identify:

  • Læreren lover at hun skal forklare oppgavene …
    → the specific assignments that the students already have / know about.

If we said:

  • … at hun skal forklare oppgaver …

it would sound like “explain assignments” in a general, non-specific way, which doesn’t fit the context as well. Here, the teacher is clearly referring to those particular assignments.

What kind of word is tydeligere, and why isn’t it mer tydelig?

The basic adjective is tydelig = clear.

Its comparative (more clear / clearer) is:

  • tydelig → tydeligere → tydeligst

In Norwegian, many adjectives form the comparative with -ere, and this same form is also used as an adverb:

  • Hun snakker tydelig. = She speaks clearly.
  • Hun snakker tydeligere. = She speaks more clearly / clearer.

So in the sentence:

  • … hun skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere …

tydeligere functions as an adverb, describing how she will explain.

You can also say mer tydelig, and it is correct:

  • … forklare oppgavene mer tydelig i morgen.

For tydelig, both tydeligere and mer tydelig are acceptable; tydeligere is just a bit more compact and very natural.

Is tydeligere describing the teacher, the assignments, or the way she explains?

Here tydeligere describes the way she will explain – that is, it modifies the verb phrase forklare oppgavene. So:

  • forklare oppgavene tydeligere
    = explain the assignments more clearly

It is not describing:

  • the teacher (a clearer teacher), or
  • the assignments (clearer assignments).

Those would require a different structure, for example:

  • tydeligere lærer = a clearer teacher
  • tydeligere oppgaver = clearer assignments (better written, more understandable tasks)
Can i morgen be placed somewhere else, for example at the beginning of the sentence?

Yes. Time expressions like i morgen are fairly flexible in Norwegian.

Some natural options are:

  • Læreren lover at hun skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen.
  • I morgen lover læreren at hun skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere.
  • Læreren lover at hun i morgen skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere. (a bit more formal/emphatic)

In main clauses, remember the V2 rule: the finite verb must be in second position. So if you put i morgen first, the next element must be the verb:

  • I morgen lover læreren … (✅)
    not
  • I morgen læreren lover … (❌)
How do we know that hun refers to læreren, and could we use a gender‑neutral pronoun?

Hun means she, and by default it refers back to the closest suitable noun that fits in context – here, læreren (the teacher).

  • Læreren lover at hun skal forklare …
    → The teacher (she) promises that she will explain …

The noun lærer(læreren) itself is grammatically gender‑neutral (common gender). You choose hun (she) or han (he) depending on the real person:

  • Læreren lover at han skal forklare … = The teacher (male) promises that he will explain …

For a gender‑neutral option, modern Norwegian sometimes uses:

  • hen (a gender‑neutral third‑person singular pronoun)
    → Læreren lover at hen skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen.

This is increasingly common in some contexts, but hun / han are still by far the most frequent.

Why is the word order hun skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen and not, for example, hun oppgavene skal forklare tydeligere i morgen?

In a normal subordinate clause (after at), the basic word order is:

Subject – finite verb – other elements – non‑finite verb – objects/adverbs, etc.

In this sentence:

  • hun (subject)
  • skal (finite verb, modal)
  • forklare (non‑finite main verb)
  • oppgavene (object)
  • tydeligere (adverb)
  • i morgen (time expression)

So: hun skal forklare oppgavene tydeligere i morgen

The order hun oppgavene skal forklare … breaks these normal patterns and sounds clearly wrong. Stick to:

  • [at] + subject + finite verb (skal) + infinitive (forklare) + object (oppgavene) + adverbs/time (tydeligere i morgen)