Megleren forklarer kontrakten til leietakeren i detalj.

The realtor explains the contract to the tenant in detail.

Breakdown of Megleren forklarer kontrakten til leietakeren i detalj.

• til: to
• forklare: to explain
• leietakeren: the tenant
• kontrakten: the contract
• megleren: the realtor
• i detalj: in detail

Questions & Answers about Megleren forklarer kontrakten til leietakeren i detalj.

Why is it Megleren and not megler or en megler?

Norwegian usually marks “the” by adding a suffix to the noun.

• megler = broker/agent (indefinite, “a(n) agent”)
• en megler = “an agent”
• megleren = “the agent”

In the sentence, a specific, known agent is meant, so the definite form megleren is used instead of en megler or bare megler.

Why does Norwegian use a suffix for “the” instead of a separate word like in English?

Norwegian typically puts the definite article at the end of the noun:

• kontrakt → kontrakten (“the contract”)
• leietaker → leietakeren (“the tenant”)

When there’s no adjective, you normally don’t add a separate article like den in front. You just attach -en / -a / -et.
A separate article in front (e.g. den kontrakten) is used when the noun has an adjective: den lange kontrakten (“the long contract”).

What does leietakeren literally mean, and how is it formed?

leietakeren is built from:

• leie = rent (verb or noun)
• taker (from ta) = taker

So leietaker literally means “rent-taker” → the person who takes the rental, i.e. the tenant.
The ending -en makes it definite: leietakeren = “the tenant”.

Why is it til leietakeren and not for leietakeren?

Both til and for can translate as “to/for” in English, but they’re used differently.

• til marks a direction or recipient (to someone):

  • Gi nøklene til leietakeren. = Give the keys to the tenant.
  • Forklare noe til noen. = Explain something to someone.

• for is more “for the benefit of / on behalf of”:

  • Jeg jobber for leietakeren. = I work for the tenant.

Since the tenant is the recipient of the explanation, til leietakeren is natural here.

Could the word order be Megleren forklarer til leietakeren kontrakten i detalj?

That word order is grammatically possible, but it sounds less natural and a bit clumsy.
Standard, neutral order is:
Megleren (S) – forklarer (V) – kontrakten (direct object) – til leietakeren (indirect object) – i detalj (adverbial).

In Norwegian, it’s very common to keep direct object close to the verb and place the prepositional phrase (like til leietakeren) after it, as in the original sentence.

Why are both kontrakten and leietakeren in the definite form?

Norwegian marks definiteness when the speaker assumes the listener knows which thing or person is meant.

• kontrakten = “the contract” (probably a specific, known contract)
• leietakeren = “the tenant” (a specific tenant, not just any tenant)

If you said megleren forklarer en kontrakt til en leietaker, it would mean “an agent explains a contract to a tenant” in a very general, non-specific way. The original sentence clearly refers to particular, identifiable entities.

What tense is forklarer, and does it mean “is explaining” or “explains”?

forklarer is the present tense of å forklare (“to explain”).
Norwegian present tense typically covers both:

• simple present: “explains”
• present continuous: “is explaining”

So Megleren forklarer kontrakten… can be understood as either “The agent explains the contract…” or “The agent is explaining the contract…”, depending on context.

Is i detalj the only way to say “in detail”? Why not i detaljer?

i detalj is the standard idiomatic expression for “in detail.”

• i detalj = “in detail” (as an adverbial phrase)
• i detaljer would literally be “in details” and is rarely used in this meaning; it sounds off in this context.

You can also say i detaljETT; i detalj and i detaljett are both used, with i detalj probably more common in everyday modern usage.

How would I say “The agent explained the contract to the tenant in detail” (past tense)?

You just change the verb to past tense:

• forklarer (present) → forklarte (past)

So the sentence becomes:
Megleren forklarte kontrakten til leietakeren i detalj.

What are the grammatical genders of megler, kontrakt, and leietaker, and how do they affect the endings?

All three are treated as masculine in standard Bokmål:

• en megler → megleren
• en kontrakt → kontrakten
• en leietaker → leietakeren

Many feminine nouns can also be used as masculine in Bokmål, but kontrakt is very commonly used as masculine. The masculine definite ending is -en (singular).

Could I replace forklarer with another verb to sound more natural or varied?

Yes, there are some common alternatives:

• går gjennom = “goes through”:
  
  • Megleren går gjennom kontrakten med leietakeren i detalj.
• gjør rede for = “accounts for / explains in detail”:
  
  • Megleren gjør rede for kontrakten for leietakeren.

forklarer is perfectly natural, but går gjennom is also very common when talking about contracts and documents.

How would I make the sentence plural: “The agent explains the contracts to the tenants in detail”?

You need plural forms for kontrakt and leietaker:

• kontraktene = the contracts
• leietakerne = the tenants

The sentence becomes:
Megleren forklarer kontraktene til leietakerne i detalj.

Are there any pronunciation pitfalls in Megleren forklarer kontrakten til leietakeren i detalj for English speakers?

A few key points:

• Megleren: the g is a hard [g] (like in “get”), and -en is a short unstressed “uhn” sound.
• forklarer: stress on the second syllable: for-KLA-rer. The r is tapped/flipped.
• kontrakten: stress on -TRAK-.
• leietakeren: lei sounds like “lay”, stress on LEI: LEI-e-ta-ker-en.
• detalj: stress on -TALJ, and lj is similar to the “lli” in “million” in many accents.