Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro, sitter han fornøyd foran i båten.

Despite not being allowed to row, he sits content in the front of the boat.

Breakdown of Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro, sitter han fornøyd foran i båten.

• han: he
• i: in
• at: that
• ikke: not
• sitte: to sit
• til tross for: despite
• få lov til å: to be allowed to
• ro: to row
• fornøyd: content
• foran: in front
• båten: the boat

Questions & Answers about Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro, sitter han fornøyd foran i båten.

What does til tross for at mean, and why is this expression used here?

Til tross for at introduces a contrast, roughly like English even though or despite the fact that.

• til tross (for) = in spite (of) / despite
• adding at turns it into despite the fact that …
  • full clause

So:

• Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro
  ≈ Even though he is not allowed to row / Despite the fact that he is not allowed to row

It is used because what follows (him sitting happily in the front) contrasts with the expectation created by the first part (not being allowed to row).

Why is there an at after til tross for?

Norwegian distinguishes:

• til tross for

  • noun / noun phrase:
  • Til tross for været = Despite the weather
  • Til tross for forbudet = Despite the ban

• til tross for at

  • full clause (subject + verb):
  • Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro = Despite the fact that he is not allowed to row

So at is needed because what follows is a whole sentence (a finite clause), not just a noun phrase. Without at, it would be ungrammatical here.

Could I replace til tross for at with selv om? Would it mean the same?

Yes, you can say:

• Selv om han ikke får lov til å ro, sitter han fornøyd foran i båten.

The meaning is basically the same as with til tross for at: Even though he is not allowed to row, he sits happily in the front of the boat.

Nuance:

• til tross for at is a bit more formal / written and slightly heavier stylistically.
• selv om is very common and neutral in everyday speech.

Both are completely correct here.

What does får lov til å mean, and why not just use kan?

Får lov til å expresses permission: to be allowed to.

• han får lov til å ro = he is allowed to row
• han ikke får lov til å ro (with ikke) = he is not allowed to row

If you use kan, you are more likely talking about ability or possibility:

• han kan ro = he can row / he is able to row

Sometimes context allows kan to mean may (permission), but får lov til å is the clearest and most explicit way to say is allowed to.

So here, får lov til å stresses that someone (a parent, instructor, rule, etc.) is not giving him permission, not that he is physically unable to row.

Why is it å ro? What exactly does ro mean here?

The verb å ro means to row (to move a boat using oars).

• å ro en båt = to row a boat

So in the sentence, å ro just refers to rowing the boat. There is no other common meaning here; it is not related to shouting or calling (that would be å rope).

Why is the word order … sitter han fornøyd … and not … han sitter fornøyd …?

Norwegian main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb (here: sitter) usually comes in second position in the clause.

The sentence has:

1. A subordinate clause introduced by til tross for at
   Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro,
   (this entire chunk is in position 1 for the main clause)

2. Then the main clause, which must put the finite verb second:

   • sitter (verb – position 2)
   • han (subject – position 3)
   • fornøyd foran i båten (rest of the sentence)

So:

• Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro, sitter han fornøyd foran i båten. ✅
• Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro, han sitter fornøyd foran i båten. ❌ (breaks V2 rule)

If the main clause stood on its own, it would be:

• Han sitter fornøyd foran i båten. (Now han is position 1, sitter is position 2.)

Why is han repeated? Could you say … får lov til å ro, sitter fornøyd … without han?

In standard Norwegian, you generally must repeat the subject when you start a new main clause after a subordinate clause.

• Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro, sitter han fornøyd foran i båten. ✅

Leaving out han here:

• Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro, sitter fornøyd foran i båten. ❌

sounds ungrammatical, because the main clause needs an explicit subject.

Norwegian does not normally drop subject pronouns the way some languages (like Spanish or Italian) do. Each finite clause expects its own subject to be stated.

Why is there a comma after ro?

The comma marks the boundary between a subordinate clause and the main clause.

• Subordinate clause: Til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro
• Main clause: sitter han fornøyd foran i båten.

In Norwegian writing, you:

• Put a comma before a main clause that follows a fronted subordinate clause like this.

So the comma is there for standard punctuation / clause separation, not for any special pause in meaning.

What is the nuance of fornøyd here? How is it different from glad or lykkelig?

Fornøyd means satisfied, content, pleased.

• It suggests he accepts the situation and feels okay / happy about it in a calm, settled way.
• Han sitter fornøyd ≈ He sits there content / pleased.

Difference from other common words:

• glad = happy, cheerful (more emotional, can be lighter and more outwardly positive)
• lykkelig = very happy, blissful (stronger, deeper happiness)
• tilfreds = very close to fornøyd, often a bit more formal or bookish

Here, fornøyd captures that he is okay with not rowing and still feels good sitting at the front.

What does foran i båten mean exactly, and how is it different from foran båten?

• foran i båten = in the front part of the boat (he is inside the boat, at the front)
• foran båten = in front of the boat (outside the boat, in front of its bow)

The preposition i is crucial:

• i båten = in the boat
• foran i båten = at the front (position) inside the boat

You could also say foran i båten instead of something like i fronten av båten; the former is more natural and idiomatic in everyday Norwegian.

Why is the present tense (får, sitter) used instead of something like an -ing form?

Norwegian does not have a separate progressive tense like English is sitting.

The simple present in Norwegian can cover both:

• English present simple: he sits there every day
• English present continuous: he is sitting there (right now)

So:

• han sitter fornøyd can mean he sits contentedly or he is sitting contentedly, depending on context.

Similarly, han ikke får lov til å ro can mean he is not allowed to row (right now / in this situation, or as a general rule).

Can the sentence be rearranged, and would that change the meaning?

Yes, you can switch the order of the clauses:

• Han sitter fornøyd foran i båten, til tross for at han ikke får lov til å ro.

Meaning and nuance are essentially the same. Differences:

• Original: starts with the restriction (not allowed to row), then contrasts with the outcome (he is content).
• Rearranged: starts with the outcome (he is content), then explains it is in spite of the restriction.

Both are grammatically correct and natural. The choice is mostly about what you want to emphasize first.