Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Under generalprøven ser regissøren at manus må endres litt. - During the dress rehearsal the director sees that the script must be changed a little.

Under generalprøven ≈ during the dress rehearsal
This is a very common use of under with time expressions:
- Under møtet snakker vi om planen. – During the meeting we talk about the plan.
- Under krigen bodde de i Sverige. – During the war they lived in Sweden.

So think of under + time noun as during + time noun in English.

What exactly is generalprøven?

Generalprøve is a theatre/performing-arts word and means dress rehearsal – the last full rehearsal before the actual performance, usually with everything (costumes, lights, sound, etc.) in place.

en generalprøve – a dress rehearsal
generalprøven – the dress rehearsal

So Under generalprøven = During the dress rehearsal.

Why is it generalprøven (definite form) and not en generalprøve?

Norwegian normally marks “the” using an ending on the noun, not a separate word:

en generalprøve – a dress rehearsal
generalprøven – the dress rehearsal

Here we’re talking about a specific, known rehearsal (probably the one for a particular show), so the definite form is natural:

Under generalprøven – During the dress rehearsal (for this production)

If you said Under en generalprøve, it would sound like “During a dress rehearsal (one or other, in general)”, not this particular one.

Why does regissøren have the -en ending? Could it be en regissør instead?

Same principle as with generalprøven:

en regissør – a director
regissøren – the director

Regissøren suggests this is the specific director of the production – someone already known in the context.

You could say:

Under generalprøven ser en regissør at …

but that would mean a director in general, not the one we assume is in charge of this show. In normal context, regissøren is the natural choice.

Why doesn’t manus have an article? Shouldn’t it be manuset for “the script”?

Manus is short for manuskript (script). Grammatically it behaves like a regular neuter noun:

et manus – a script
manuset – the script

In this sentence, manus is used without an article. That can mean either:

It’s treated a bit like a “mass” noun (talking about “the script material” in general), or
It’s a stylistic choice where the article is dropped because the context makes it obvious.

You could say:

… ser regissøren at manuset må endres litt.

That would clearly mean the script, and is probably what many speakers would also naturally say. Using bare manus is still idiomatic, especially in professional contexts where there obviously is one particular script everyone is working on.

Is manus a neuter or common-gender noun? How is it declined?

Manus is neuter (like et hus, et bord).

Typical forms:

Indefinite singular: et manus – a script
Definite singular: manuset – the script
Indefinite plural: manus – scripts
Definite plural: manusene – the scripts

In your sentence, it’s the bare stem manus being used as a kind of generic or contextually understood noun.

Why is the word order ser regissøren and not regissøren ser?

This is the V2 rule in Norwegian main clauses: the finite verb must be in second position.

The sentence starts with a time phrase:

Under generalprøven – first element
The finite verb must come next: ser – second position
Then the subject: regissøren

So we get:

Under generalprøven ser regissøren …

If the sentence started with the subject, it would be:

Regissøren ser under generalprøven at …

Both are correct. The choice affects emphasis and style, not grammar: fronting Under generalprøven puts a bit more focus on the time frame.

Could I also say Regissøren ser under generalprøven at manus må endres litt?

Yes, that is grammatically correct:

Regissøren ser under generalprøven at manus må endres litt.

This version follows the “neutral” order: subject – verb – (time phrase).

The original sentence just moves the time phrase to the front for stylistic/structural reasons:

Under generalprøven ser regissøren at …

Meaning is the same; the difference is which part is given initial focus.

What does ser mean here? Is it physical seeing, or more like “realizes / notices”?

Literally å se means to see, but in Norwegian it’s often used in a more abstract sense:

se at … can mean see/realize/notices that …

In this sentence, ser is best understood as:

The director notices / realizes / sees that the script needs to be changed a bit.

So it doesn’t have to be about physically looking at something; it can express mental perception, just like English “I see that you’re tired”.

What is the function of at in ser … at manus må endres litt?

Here at is a subordinating conjunction meaning that.

It introduces a whole clause which is the object of ser:

Main clause: Under generalprøven ser regissøren … – During the dress rehearsal, the director sees …
Subordinate clause introduced by at: at manus må endres litt – that the script must be changed a bit

In English, that can often be dropped:

“The director sees (that) the script must be changed a bit.”

In Norwegian, you must keep at in this kind of sentence; you cannot omit it:

✅ ser at manus må endres litt
❌ ser manus må endres litt

Why is there no comma before at in this sentence?

In modern Norwegian punctuation, you normally do not use a comma before an object clause introduced by at when it follows directly after the verb:

Han sier at han kommer. – He says (that) he’s coming.
Jeg tror at det regner. – I think (that) it’s raining.
Under generalprøven ser regissøren at manus må endres litt.

A comma is used before men, for, eller etc., and before many other subordinate clauses, but not usually in simple verb + at-clause object constructions like this.

So the sentence as written, without a comma before at, matches current standard practice.

Can you explain the structure of manus må endres litt? Why that word order?

Yes. This is a subordinate clause introduced by at, and its internal structure is:

manus – subject
må – finite modal verb (“must / has to / needs to”)
endres – main verb in passive infinitive (“be changed”)
litt – adverb meaning “a little / a bit”

So:

manus (the script)
må (must / has to)
endres (be changed)
litt (a bit)

In Norwegian subordinate clauses, the typical order is:

Subject – (sentence adverb) – finite verb – other verbs – other elements

Here there is no sentence adverb like ikke, so we simply get:

manus må endres litt

What form is endres? Why not endre or bli endret?

Endres is the -s passive form of endre (“to change”).

There are two common passive patterns in Norwegian:

-s passive
- manuset endres – the script is (being) changed
- manuset må endres – the script must be changed
bli + past participle
- manuset blir endret – the script is (being) changed
- manuset må bli endret – the script must be changed

In your sentence, må endres (modal + s-passive infinitive) is compact and natural:

manus må endres litt – the script needs to be changed a bit

All of these would be grammatical, with very similar meaning:

manuset må endres litt
manuset må bli endret litt

Endre without s or bli would be active:

Regissøren må endre manus litt. – The director has to change the script a bit.

What does litt do here, and how is it different from lite?

Here litt is an adverb/degree word meaning a little / a bit / slightly. It modifies endres:

må endres litt – must be changed a little / must be changed a bit

About litt vs lite:

litt
- usually positive / neutral amount: “a little, a bit, some”
- Jeg vil endre det litt. – I want to change it a bit.
lite
- often negative / “not much”: “little, not much”
- Det er lite manus igjen. – There is little script left / not much script left.

In this sentence, you want litt, because you’re saying the script needs a bit of change, not not much change.