På plakaten står det at regissøren ønsker frivillige til å dele ut programmer til publikum.

Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Norwegian grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Norwegian now

Questions & Answers about På plakaten står det at regissøren ønsker frivillige til å dele ut programmer til publikum.

Why does the sentence start with På plakaten instead of Det står på plakaten?

Norwegian often puts information about where/when something happens at the very beginning of the sentence. This is called fronting.

  • Det står på plakaten at … – perfectly correct.
  • På plakaten står det at … – also correct, but now på plakaten is emphasized as the topic: “On the poster, it says that …”

So the writer chose to highlight the poster as the place where the information is found. Both word orders are grammatical; it is mainly a stylistic choice.

What is the function of det in står det? Is it referring to something specific?

Here det is a dummy (expletive) subject, similar to “it” in English sentences like “It says on the poster that …”.

  • Norwegian needs a grammatical subject in most finite clauses.
  • Because the sentence begins with På plakaten, that is not the grammatical subject.
  • So Norwegian inserts the dummy det:
    På plakaten står det at …

det here does not refer to any concrete thing; it is just filling the subject slot.

Why is it På plakaten and not I plakaten?

The preposition is used for things that are on a surface or written/printed on something:

  • på plakaten – on the poster
  • på tavla – on the board
  • på veggen – on the wall
  • på skjermen – on the screen

i means in/inside, and would normally be wrong here; the text is not inside the poster, it is on it.

Why is it plakaten and not plakat?

Norwegian uses a suffix to show definiteness instead of a separate word like “the”:

  • en plakat – a poster (indefinite singular)
  • plakaten – the poster (definite singular)

In this sentence, we are talking about a specific, known poster, so the definite form plakaten is used: På plakaten …On the poster …

What does regissøren mean, and why does it have -en at the end?

regissør means director (film, theatre, etc.).

Norwegian again uses a suffix for the definite form:

  • en regissør – a director
  • regissøren – the director

So regissøren means the director (a specific one mentioned or understood from context).

What is the nuance of ønsker here? Is it “wants” or “wishes”?

ønsker can mean both “wants” and “wishes”, depending on context.

In this sentence:

  • regissøren ønsker frivillige = the director wants volunteers

This is a practical request, so “wants” is the best translation here.

Some comparisons:

  • Jeg ønsker kaffe. – I want coffee. (polite / a bit formal)
  • Jeg vil ha kaffe. – I want (to have) coffee. (more direct)
  • Jeg ønsker deg lykke til. – I wish you good luck.

Here it is closer to “would like to have” volunteers.

What exactly is frivillige? Is it an adjective or a noun?

frivillig can be both an adjective and a noun:

  • Adjective: frivillig arbeid – voluntary work
  • Noun: en frivillig – a volunteer

In this sentence, frivillige is a plural noun:

  • en frivillig – a volunteer
  • frivillige – volunteers

So regissøren ønsker frivillige means the director wants volunteers (people).

How does the structure ønsker frivillige til å … work? Is it like “wants volunteers to …” in English?

Yes, it corresponds closely to English “wants volunteers to …”:

  • regissøren ønsker frivillige til å dele ut programmer
    = the director wants volunteers to hand out programs

Pattern:

  • ønsker [someone] til å [do something]

The til å + infinitive part shows the purpose: what the volunteers are needed for.

Why is it til å dele ut and not just å dele ut?

Both can occur, but they have different typical uses.

  • å dele ut – plain infinitive: to hand out
  • til å dele uttil + å + infinitive: often expresses purpose or function: for handing out / to hand out

Here we are saying what the volunteers are for:

  • frivillige til å dele ut programmer
    = volunteers for handing out programs / volunteers to hand out programs

Without til, it would sound more like just describing an action, not the purpose of the volunteers. So til å is natural and idiomatic here.

What is the role of ut in dele ut? Why not just dele?

dele ut is a particle verb (similar to English phrasal verbs):

  • dele – to share, divide
    • dele en kake – divide/share a cake
  • dele ut – to distribute / hand out
    • dele ut programmer – hand out programs

The particle ut adds the meaning of “outwards, to several people”, turning “divide/share” into “distribute/hand out”.

You conjugate only the main verb:

  • jeg deler ut
  • jeg delte ut
  • jeg har delt ut
Does programmer here mean “computer programs”?

In Norwegian, program has several meanings, just like English “program”:

  • a schedule or plan
  • a TV/radio program
  • a printed programme for a concert, play, etc.
  • a computer program

Here, from context (dele ut programmer til publikum), programmer clearly means printed programs/leaflets (like theatre or concert programs) that are given to the audience.

Grammar:

  • et program – a program
  • programmer – programs (indefinite plural)
Why is it til publikum and not til publikumet?

publikum is a collective noun, meaning the audience or the public as a group.

In this kind of generic use:

  • publikum – the audience (no article needed)
  • You normally say til publikumto the audience

You could say publikummet in some very specific contexts, but for “hand out programs to the audience”, the natural expression is til publikum without a definite ending.

Is the word order at regissøren ønsker frivillige … different because of at?

Yes. at introduces a subordinate clause (a that-clause). In subordinate clauses, Norwegian does not use the usual main-clause verb-second (V2) rule.

  • Main clause: Regissøren ønsker frivillige.
    (Subject regissøren
    • verb ønsker)
  • Subordinate clause: at regissøren ønsker frivillige …

So inside the at-clause, the normal order is:

  • [at] + subject + verb + rest of the sentence

You would not say *at ønsker regissøren frivillige; that would be incorrect.

Can at be dropped like English “that” sometimes is?

In English you can often omit “that”:

  • “It says on the poster (that) the director wants volunteers.”

In Norwegian, at in this kind of clause is normally not dropped:

  • På plakaten står det at regissøren ønsker … – correct
  • *På plakaten står det regissøren ønsker … – sounds wrong/unnatural

So in Norwegian, keep at in written and standard spoken language in sentences like this.