Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Leietakeren signerer en kontrakt som megleren har sendt på e-post. - The tenant signs a contract that the realtor has sent by email.

Leietakeren signerer en kontrakt som megleren har sendt på e-post.

The tenant signs a contract that the realtor has sent by email.

Breakdown of Leietakeren signerer en kontrakt som megleren har sendt på e-post.

Elon.io is an online learning platform

We have an entire course teaching Norwegian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Norwegian now

Questions & Answers about Leietakeren signerer en kontrakt som megleren har sendt på e-post.

What does leietakeren mean, and why does it end in -en?

Leietakeren means the tenant.

In Norwegian, the definite article (the) is usually added as a suffix on the noun:

leietaker = tenant (indefinite, general)
leietakeren = the tenant (definite, a specific one already known in the context)

So instead of saying den leietaker, Norwegian normally says leietakeren.

Why is it en kontrakt (a contract) but leietakeren (the tenant)? Why aren’t they both definite or both indefinite?

Norwegian treats noun definiteness much like English does, just with suffixes:

en kontrakt = a contract (indefinite; introduces something new)
kontrakten = the contract (definite; a specific, already known contract)

In this sentence, leietakeren and megleren refer to specific, identifiable people (the tenant and the agent already known from context), so they are definite:

leietakeren = the tenant
megleren = the agent / broker

But en kontrakt is introduced as a new thing in the discourse: the tenant is signing a contract (not yet identified as a particular, previously mentioned contract). So it is indefinite.

You could say kontrakten if both speaker and listener already know exactly which contract is meant (for example, one specific rental contract they’ve been talking about).

What is the role of som here, and how should I translate it?

Som is a relative pronoun here, introducing a relative clause that describes en kontrakt:

en kontrakt som megleren har sendt på e-post
= a contract that the agent has sent by email

In English, som in this kind of sentence is usually translated as that, sometimes which (for things) or who (for people). Norwegian uses som for all of these functions:

mannen som bor der = the man who lives there
boka som jeg leste = the book that/which I read

So in this sentence, som = that.

Can som be left out, like in English where we can say “the contract the agent sent”?

No, not in standard Norwegian. In this kind of relative clause, som is normally required:

Correct: en kontrakt som megleren har sendt
Incorrect: ✗ en kontrakt megleren har sendt

Unlike English, you can’t normally drop som when it refers to the subject or object of the relative clause. You need it to connect the clause to en kontrakt.

Why is the verb form signerer used? Does it mean signs or is signing?

Norwegian only has one present tense form for regular verbs, and it covers both English simple present and present continuous:

Leietakeren signerer en kontrakt …
can be understood as:
- The tenant signs a contract … (general/habitual or narrative present), or
- The tenant is signing a contract … (right now, ongoing)

The exact nuance comes from context, not from verb form. Signerer is the regular present tense of å signere (to sign).

Why is it har sendt and not just sendte? What’s the difference?

har sendt = present perfect (has sent)
sendte = simple past (sent)

In this sentence:

… en kontrakt som megleren har sendt på e-post
= … a contract that the agent has sent by email.

Using har sendt often implies that the sending is relevant to the present situation. The agent has already sent it, and now (as a result) the tenant is signing it.

You could also say:

… en kontrakt som megleren sendte på e-post.

This tends to sound a bit more like you’re just narrating a past event, with less focus on the connection to the present. Both forms are grammatically correct; the choice is about nuance and style.

Why is the word order megleren har sendt and not har megleren sendt?

Som megleren har sendt på e-post is a relative clause, i.e. a subordinate clause. In Norwegian subordinate clauses, the word order is:

Subject – (negation/other adverbs) – verb

So you get:

megleren har sendt
Subject (megleren) + auxiliary (har) + participle (sendt)

The V2 (verb-second) rule – where the verb usually comes in second position – applies to main clauses, not to subordinate clauses. So:

Main clause: Megleren har sendt en kontrakt.
Relative/subordinate clause: … en kontrakt som megleren har sendt.

Har megleren sendt …? would be the word order for a question, not for this relative clause.

What does megleren mean exactly? Is it only a real estate agent?

Megleren literally means the broker / the agent.

In everyday Norwegian, megler is very commonly used for a real estate agent, especially in housing contexts:

eiendomsmegler = real estate agent
megleren in a rental context will almost always be understood as the real estate agent / rental agent.

In other contexts, megler could be a broker in finance or another kind of intermediary, but here the default interpretation is someone handling the rental on behalf of the landlord or agency.

Why is it på e-post and not something like med e-post or via e-post?

Norwegian uses på e-post as the standard way to say by email / in an email:

Jeg sendte dokumentet på e-post.
= I sent the document by email.

Other prepositions would sound odd or at best unusual in this phrase:

✗ med e-post – not idiomatic for by email
✗ via e-post – sometimes heard, but less natural than på e-post in everyday language

You might also see per e-post, which is somewhat more formal or old-fashioned and often used in written communication:

per e-post ≈ by email / via email

But på e-post is the most common, natural choice.

What gender does kontrakt have, and is en kontrakt the only correct form?

Kontrakt is common gender in Norwegian, so the normal forms are:

en kontrakt = a contract
kontrakten = the contract

There is no widely used feminine version (ei kontrakt) in standard Bokmål; en kontrakt is what you should use. The plural would be:

kontrakter = contracts
kontraktene = the contracts

Could you say leieren instead of leietakeren? What’s the difference?

Yes, leieren is also used in Norwegian, and both refer to the tenant, but there is a nuance:

leier / leieren
Literally renter, the person who rents something.
leietaker / leietakeren
Literally lease-taker, more formal and legal-sounding.

In everyday speech, leier is common and natural:

Leieren signerer en kontrakt …

In more formal, legal, or contract language, leietaker / leietakeren is very common, which matches the style of this sentence about signing a contract.

Why is there no preposition after signerer, like signerer på en kontrakt?

In Norwegian, the normal construction is simply:

å signere noe = to sign something

So you say:

signerer en kontrakt = signs a contract

Adding a preposition like på (✗ signerer på en kontrakt) is not standard here and would typically sound incorrect or at least non‑native. The verb signere takes a direct object without a preposition.

Can this sentence be rearranged to Megleren har sendt en kontrakt på e-post som leietakeren signerer? Does that change the meaning?

You can grammatically say:

Megleren har sendt en kontrakt på e-post som leietakeren signerer.

However, the emphasis shifts:

Original: Leietakeren signerer en kontrakt som megleren har sendt på e-post.
Focus: what the tenant is doing (signing), and the contract is described.
Rearranged: Megleren har sendt en kontrakt på e-post som leietakeren signerer.
Focus: what the agent has done (sent a contract), and the contract is described.

The basic facts are the same, but Norwegian (like English) usually picks the subject that’s most important for the context. The original sounds more natural if your focus is on the tenant’s action.