Barna får ikke lov til å ro alene, selv om flytevestene er på.

The children are not allowed to row alone, even though the life jackets are on.

Breakdown of Barna får ikke lov til å ro alene, selv om flytevestene er på.

• være: to be
• barnet: the child
• på: on
• ikke: not
• selv om: even though
• alene: alone
• få lov til å: to be allowed to
• ro: to row
• flytevesten: the life jacket

Questions & Answers about Barna får ikke lov til å ro alene, selv om flytevestene er på.

What does «får ikke lov til» mean, and is it a fixed expression?

«Får ikke lov til» is a very common expression meaning “are not allowed to / may not”.

• får = “get / receive” (from å få)
• lov = “permission”
• til = part of the pattern (literally “to”)

Literally it’s something like “the children do not get permission to row alone”.

You use it like this:

• Barna får lov til å ro. – The children are allowed to row.
• Barna får ikke lov til å ro. – The children are not allowed to row.

It’s best to learn å få lov til å + infinitive as a fixed pattern meaning “to be allowed to do something.”

Why is it «får ikke lov til å ro» and not «får ikke å ro»?

In Norwegian you cannot just say «få + å + verb» to mean “be allowed to do something.” You need the noun “permission” in between:

• Correct: å få lov til å ro – to be allowed to row
• Incorrect: å få å ro

So the pattern is:

få lov til å + [infinitive]

Examples:

• Jeg får lov til å kjøre bilen. – I’m allowed to drive the car.
• Hun får ikke lov til å gå ut. – She is not allowed to go out.

What is the role of «til» in «lov til å ro»?

«Til» is part of a very common construction:

lov til å + [infinitive]

Literally: “permission to [do something]”.

• lov til å ro – permission to row
• lov til å svømme – permission to swim
• lov til å gå ut – permission to go out

You normally must include til here. Saying «lov å ro» is colloquial and common in speech in some dialects, but «lov til å ro» is the standard and safest form, especially in writing.

Why is «ikke» placed after «får» and not before, like «Barna ikke får lov …»?

In a main clause in Norwegian, the finite verb usually comes in the second position, and «ikke» normally comes after that verb:

• Barna (subject) får (verb) ikke (negation) lov til å ro …

So the pattern is:

Subject – Finite verb – ikke – (rest of the clause)

Some more examples:

• Jeg har ikke tid. – I don’t have time.
• Vi kommer ikke i morgen. – We are not coming tomorrow.

«Barna ikke får lov …» would sound wrong unless you are doing some kind of special emphasis or poetic word order.

What’s the difference between «barn» and «barna»?

Barn is the noun “child / children” (it’s the same form in singular and plural in the indefinite form), and -a is the definite plural ending.

• barn – child / children (indefinite)
• barna – the children (definite plural)

So:

• Barn roer. – Children row. (very general, rarely used this way)
• Barna roer. – The children are rowing. (some specific children that both speaker and listener know about)

In this sentence, «Barna får ikke lov …» = “The children are not allowed …”, referring to specific children in context.

What does «å ro» mean here, and is it related to “rest / peace”?

Here «å ro» is the verb meaning “to row (a boat)”.

Norwegian actually has two different words spelled ro:

1. ro (verb) – to row

   • å ro en båt – to row a boat

2. ro (noun) – peace, calm

   • Jeg trenger ro. – I need peace/quiet.

They are different words; the noun “ro” (peace, quiet) is not what we have in «å ro alene». In the sentence, it’s clearly about rowing a boat alone.

Why is it «å ro alene» and not «å ro ensom»?

In Norwegian, «alene» means “alone / by oneself” in the sense of not being with other people:

• å ro alene – to row alone
• å bo alene – to live alone

«Ensom» means “lonely” (emotionally), not physically alone:

• Han er ensom. – He is lonely.

So «å ro ensom» would sound like “to row lonely,” which is not normal Norwegian. You want «å ro alene» to say they are rowing without company.

What does «selv om» mean, and how is it used?

«Selv om» means “even though / although” and introduces a subordinate clause that contrasts with the main clause.

In the sentence:

• Main clause: Barna får ikke lov til å ro alene
• Subordinate clause: selv om flytevestene er på.

Meaning:
“The children are not allowed to row alone, even though the life jackets are on.”

Word order in the selv om clause is like a normal statement (subject + verb):

• selv om flytevestene er på (NOT er flytevestene på here)

You normally don’t add «at» after selv om. «Selv om at» is non-standard or dialectal.

Why is there a comma before «selv om» in Norwegian?

In written Norwegian (Bokmål and Nynorsk), you must put a comma between a main clause and a subordinate clause introduced by words like selv om, fordi, når, hvis, at, etc.

So:

• Barna får ikke lov til å ro alene, selv om flytevestene er på.

This is a main clause (Barna får ikke lov til å ro alene) followed by a subordinate clause (selv om flytevestene er på), so a comma is required.

What does «flytevestene» mean, and why is it in the definite plural form?

Flytevest = life jacket / buoyancy vest.

The endings:

• en flytevest – a life jacket
• flytevester – life jackets
• flytevestene – the life jackets

In the sentence we have «flytevestene», definite plural, because we’re talking about specific life jackets that are already known in the situation (for example, the life jackets the children are wearing).

So «selv om flytevestene er på» literally:
“even though the life jackets are on.”

Why is it «flytevestene er på» and not «de har på seg flytevester»?

Both are possible, but they sound slightly different:

1. flytevestene er på

   • Literally: “the life jackets are on.”
   • Natural English: “they have their life jackets on / they are wearing the life jackets.”
   • Focuses on the state of the life jackets (they are on their bodies).

2. de har på seg flytevester

   • Literally: “they have on themselves life jackets.”
   • Also means they are wearing life jackets.
   • More explicit about the people (“they”) as the subject.

In your sentence, «flytevestene er på» is shorter and very natural; Norwegian often allows this type of construction instead of always using «ha på seg».

Why is there no pronoun like «de» in the second clause (no “they”)?

Norwegian can avoid repeating the pronoun if it’s clear from context. Here, we know that «flytevestene» (the life jackets) belong to «barna» (the children), so the sentence focuses on the life jackets as the subject:

• selv om flytevestene er på – “even though the life jackets are on”

If you wanted to emphasize the children instead, you could say:

• selv om de har på seg flytevester. – even though they are wearing life jackets.

Both are grammatical; the original just chooses to highlight the state of the life jackets rather than repeat “they.”