Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Treneren får oss til å løpe fortere enn vi trodde var mulig. - The trainer makes us run faster than we thought was possible.

Få noen til å + infinitive is a very common Norwegian causative construction. It usually translates to “make someone do something” or “get someone to do something.”

Pattern:

få (conjugated) + person in object form
- til å
  - infinitive

In this sentence:

får = “makes / gets”
oss = “us” (object)
til å løpe = “to run” (løpe is the infinitive)

So Treneren får oss til å løpe = “The coach makes us run / gets us to run.”

This is the normal way to express that someone causes someone else to do an action.

Why is it løpe and not løper after til å?

After til å, you must use the infinitive of the verb, not the present tense.

Infinitive: løpe (to run)
Present tense: løper (run / is running / do run)

The pattern is:

til å + infinitive → til å løpe, til å spise, til å lese, etc.

So:

❌ får oss til å løper
✅ får oss til å løpe

What is the difference between får oss til å løpe and something like gjør at vi løper?

Both can be translated “makes us run,” but they work differently:

få noen til å + infinitive
- Very direct causation.
- Focus on causing a person to do an action.
- Treneren får oss til å løpe fortere.
  - The coach actively pushes us, encourages us, orders us, etc.
gjøre at + setning (clause)
- More indirect, often about causing a situation or result.
- Treneren gjør at vi løper fortere.
  - The coach results in us running faster (maybe through good training plans, motivation, etc.).

Both are correct, but få oss til å løpe sounds more like direct influence on our action, which fits well here.

Why is the adverb fortere used instead of mer fort or raskere?

Norwegian has a comparative form of fort:

fort = fast
fortere = faster
fortest = fastest

So:

✅ løpe fortere = run faster

You can sometimes hear mer fort, but with common short adjectives/adverbs like fort, the natural comparative is the -ere form, not mer + adjective.

What about raskere?

rask = fast, quick
raskere = faster, quicker

You could say:

Treneren får oss til å løpe raskere enn vi trodde var mulig.

This is also correct; it just uses a slightly different word (“fast” vs “quick”). Fortere is probably the most neutral and common choice with løpe.

How does enn vi trodde var mulig work grammatically? It feels like something is missing.

Literal structure:

fortere enn vi trodde var mulig
“faster than we thought was possible”

In full form, you could think of it as:

fortere enn (det) vi trodde (at) (det) var mulig

Norwegian often drops “det” and “at” in such clauses when the meaning is clear.

Base sentence:

Vi trodde (at) det var mulig.
= We thought (that) it was possible.

In the comparative:

fortere enn vi trodde var mulig = faster than we thought (it) was possible (to be)

So yes, English also has that slightly “hanging” structure:
“...than we thought was possible” (no explicit “it”). Norwegian does the same, and can omit det and at here.

Could you also say enn vi trodde det var mulig or enn vi trodde var mulig det?

✅ enn vi trodde det var mulig
This is grammatically possible but sounds a bit heavier and less natural in everyday speech. Most speakers would drop det here and say the original version.
❌ enn vi trodde var mulig det
This is ungrammatical in Norwegian. The pronoun det cannot be placed at the end like that in this structure.

The most natural form is exactly the one in your sentence:

fortere enn vi trodde var mulig

Why is the verb var (past) and not er (present) in vi trodde var mulig?

You have two past verbs:

trodde = thought (past of tro)
var = was (past of være)

Content-wise, we are talking about what we used to think in the past:

“...faster than we thought was possible.”

In Norwegian, when the main verb of thinking is past (trodde), the verb in the subordinate clause usually also appears in the past (var), mirroring the English pattern closely.

You can sometimes hear:

fortere enn vi trodde er mulig

But this sounds a bit marked and is less standard; it suggests “than we previously thought is possible (now)”. The safe, neutral choice is:

enn vi trodde var mulig

Why is it oss and not vi after får?

Vi and oss are different cases of the same pronoun:

vi = subject form (“we”)
oss = object form (“us”)

In this sentence:

Treneren is the subject (the one doing the “making”).
oss is the object (the ones being made to run).

So:

✅ Treneren får oss til å løpe ...
❌ Treneren får vi til å løpe ...

Compare:

Vi løper fort. – We run fast. (we = subject)
Treneren får oss til å løpe fort. – The coach makes us run fast. (us = object)

Why is it Treneren and not En trener at the start?

treneren = the coach (definite form)
en trener = a coach (indefinite form)

Norwegian usually uses the definite form when referring to:

someone already known in the situation,
a specific, concrete person (e.g. our coach).

So:

Treneren får oss til å løpe fortere ... = (Our/the known) coach makes us run faster...

If you said:

En trener får oss til å løpe fortere ... = “A coach makes us run faster...”
This sounds like you are talking about some unspecified coach in general, not your particular coach.

Is the word order vi trodde var mulig fixed, or could it be vi trodde mulig var?

The word order vi trodde var mulig is essentially fixed here.

Underlying structure:

vi trodde (at det) var mulig
- vi = subject of trodde
- trodde = verb
- (det) = subject of var (often omitted)
- var mulig = predicate (“was possible”)

You cannot reorder it as:

❌ vi trodde mulig var

Norwegian has relatively flexible word order compared to English in some areas, but in subordinate clauses like this, the S–V–(rest) order (det var mulig) must be kept, and mulig (an adjective) must follow var.