Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Vi drar til en liten hytte ved fjorden, til tross for at været er vått. - We go to a small cabin by the fjord, despite the weather being wet.

dra – very general go/leave, often when you go somewhere (by any means of transport).
- Vi drar til hytta. = We’re going to the cabin.
gå – mainly go on foot / walk, or figurative uses (det går bra).
- Vi går til butikken. = We walk to the shop.
reise – more like travel, usually longer trips or more formal.
- Vi reiser til Italia. = We’re travelling to Italy.

So Vi drar til en liten hytte… focuses on the fact that you’re heading off somewhere, without saying how (car, bus, etc.). Vi går would suggest walking; Vi reiser would sound like a more “serious” or longer trip.

Why is it til en liten hytte but ved fjorden? What is the difference between til and ved?

til usually means to / towards and is used with movement to a destination:
- dra til hytta – go to the cabin
- kjøre til byen – drive to town
ved means by / next to / at (close to) and describes location, not movement:
- hytte ved fjorden – a cabin by the fjord
- huset ved elva – the house by the river

In the sentence, you move to a cabin (til en liten hytte), and that cabin is located by the fjord (ved fjorden). You cannot say dra ved hytta; that would be wrong.

Why is it en liten hytte but fjorden with -en at the end?

Norwegian marks definiteness differently from English:

Indefinite (a/some):
- en hytte – a cabin
Definite (the):
- hytta – the cabin
For masculine -en is used:
- en fjord – a fjord
- fjorden – the fjord

In en liten hytte, a new cabin is introduced, so it’s indefinite.
In ved fjorden, the fjord is treated as a specific, known thing (maybe the local fjord everyone knows about), so it’s definite.

This mirrors typical usage: a small cabin by the fjord – a cabin, but the (known) fjord.

Why is the adjective liten placed before hytte, and how does it change?

In Norwegian, normal descriptive adjectives go before the noun:

en liten hytte – a small cabin
en stor by – a big city

The adjective liten has several forms:

Masculine singular: liten – en liten hytte
Feminine singular (if you use the feminine article): lita – ei lita hytte
Neuter singular: lite – et lite hus
Plural: små – små hytter

In this sentence, hytte is treated as masculine (en hytte), so you get en liten hytte.

Could it also be ei lita hytte instead of en liten hytte?

Yes, that is also correct in Bokmål:

en liten hytte – using masculine gender
ei lita hytte – using feminine gender

Many speakers treat hytte as feminine in speech, and both options are accepted in standard Bokmål. Written Norwegian often prefers the masculine (en liten hytte), but if you consistently use ei / -a forms for feminine nouns, ei lita hytte is natural.

What exactly does ved fjorden mean? Is it the same as på fjorden or i fjorden?

They are different:

ved fjorden – by / next to / on the shore of the fjord
- The cabin is near the water, probably on land.
på fjorden – on the fjord, usually out on the water, e.g. in a boat.
- Vi er ute på fjorden. = We’re out on the fjord (in a boat).
i fjorden – literally in the fjord, often about something in the water or inside the fjord area.
- Det svømmer fisk i fjorden. = There are fish swimming in the fjord.

So ved fjorden fits a cabin on land close to the fjord.

What does til tross for at mean, and how is it used?

til tross for at means even though / despite the fact that and introduces a full clause:

til tross for at været er vått
= even though the weather is wet

Pattern:

til tross for at + [subject] + [verb] …

Compare:

til tross for + noun / noun phrase
- til tross for det dårlige været – despite the bad weather
selv om + clause (very common, a bit simpler)
- selv om været er vått – even though the weather is wet

So you can say both:

Vi drar…, til tross for at været er vått.
Vi drar…, selv om været er vått.

Both are correct; selv om is more everyday and shorter.

Why is there a comma before til tross for at?

Norwegian normally puts a comma between a main clause and a following subordinate clause:

Main clause: Vi drar til en liten hytte ved fjorden
Subordinate clause: til tross for at været er vått

Therefore:

Vi drar til en liten hytte ved fjorden, til tross for at været er vått.

If you move the subordinate clause to the front, the comma moves:

Til tross for at været er vått, drar vi til en liten hytte ved fjorden.

Why is the word order været er vått and not er været vått?

Norwegian has different word order rules in main clauses and subordinate clauses:

In main clauses, the verb is usually in second position (V2):
- Været er vått. – The weather is wet.
- Nå er været vått. – Now the weather is wet.
In subordinate clauses (introduced by at, fordi, til tross for at, selv om, etc.), the normal pattern is:
- [subordinator] + subject + verb + ...

So:

…til tross for at været er vått. (subordinate clause) – correct
…til tross for at er været vått. – wrong

The subject været must come before the verb er here.

Why is it været and not just vær?

vær is a neuter noun:

et vær – a (type of) weather
været – the weather

When we talk about the actual weather outside now/in general, Norwegian almost always uses the definite form:

Hvordan er været? – How is the weather?
Været er fint. – The weather is nice.
Været er vått. – The weather is wet.

So været = the weather, which is what you want in this sentence.

Why is the adjective vått and not våt?

Adjectives agree with the noun’s gender and number. The base forms of våt (wet) are:

Masculine/feminine singular: våt
- en våt jakke – a wet jacket
Neuter singular: vått
- et vått teppe – a wet blanket
Plural: våte
- våte klær – wet clothes

vær is neuter (et vær), so you use the neuter form vått:

et vått vær – wet weather
været er vått – the weather is wet

Note that in predicative position (after er, blir, etc.), the adjective agrees in gender and number, but not in definiteness:

huset er stort (neuter, definite noun – but stort, not store)
været er vått (same pattern)

Could you say til tross for været er vått without at?

No, not in standard Norwegian. You have two separate patterns:

til tross for at + clause
- til tross for at været er vått
til tross for + noun / noun phrase / -ing form
- til tross for været
- til tross for det våte været
- til tross for regnet

If you want a full clause with a subject and verb (været er vått), you must include at:

til tross for at været er vått – correct
til tross for været er vått – incorrect

Could the sentence also be Vi skal dra til en liten hytte ved fjorden…? What is the difference?

Yes, Vi skal dra til en liten hytte ved fjorden… is grammatically correct.

Vi drar til… (present tense) is often used for planned or near-future actions, especially when the context makes the time clear. It often feels a bit more immediate or definite:
- Vi drar til hytta i morgen. – We’re going to the cabin tomorrow.
Vi skal dra til… emphasises the intention or plan to go; it can feel slightly more “future-oriented” or formal in some contexts.

In everyday speech, Norwegians very often use plain present (drar) for the near future, just like English uses We’re going.