På vei hjem får vi lov til å stoppe ved et utsiktspunkt og ta bilder av fjorden.

On the way home we are allowed to stop at a viewpoint and take pictures of the fjord.

Breakdown of På vei hjem får vi lov til å stoppe ved et utsiktspunkt og ta bilder av fjorden.

• vi: we
• et: a
• og: and
• på: on
• ved: at
• stoppe: to stop
• av: of
• ta: to take
• bildet: the picture
• hjem: home
• veien: the way
• fjorden: the fjord
• få lov til å: to be allowed to
• utsiktspunktet: the viewpoint

Questions & Answers about På vei hjem får vi lov til å stoppe ved et utsiktspunkt og ta bilder av fjorden.

Why is there no verb in På vei hjem? It looks like “On way home” instead of “On the way home we are…”.

In Norwegian, the phrase På vei hjem is a very common “free‑standing” time/place expression. It’s understood as “(When we are) on the way home”.

The full underlying idea would be something like Når vi er på vei hjem (“When we are on the way home”), but er (“are”) and når vi (“when we”) are simply left out because they’re obvious from context.

So:

• På vei hjem = “On the way home / While going home”
• It functions as an adverbial phrase at the start of the sentence, setting the scene, without needing its own verb.

What’s the difference between hjem and hjemme, and why is there no article (“the”) like in English “the way home”?

• hjem = “home” as a direction (to home).

  • Jeg drar hjem. = “I’m going home.”
  • På vei hjem. = “On the way home.”

• hjemme = “(at) home” as a location.

  • Jeg er hjemme. = “I am at home.”

Norwegian usually doesn’t use an article with hjem:

• You say hjem, not *det hjem (“the home”) in this kind of expression.

Similarly, vei (“way/road”) here appears without a definite article:

• på vei hjem literally “on (the) way home”
  English wants the; Norwegian does not always need it in set expressions like this.

How does the structure får vi lov til å work? What does each word mean?

The phrase får lov til å is a very common way to say “are allowed to / may”.

Breakdown:

• får – from the verb å få, which among other meanings can mean “get / receive / be allowed”.
• vi – “we”.
• lov – literally “permission” (here, an abstract noun).
• til – “to” (a preposition linking “permission” to the action).
• å – infinitive marker, like “to” before a verb in English.

So:

• får vi lov til å stoppe ≈ “do we get permission to stop” → “we are allowed to stop”.

Grammatically:
få + lov + til + å + infinitive verb
= “to get permission to do [something]”.

What’s the difference between using får lov til å and just kan (“can”)?

Both can express permission, but they’re not identical:

• kan mainly expresses ability and also sometimes permission, like English “can”:

  • Vi kan stoppe her.
    Could mean “We are able to stop here” or “We are allowed to stop here”, depending on context.

• får lov til å focuses clearly on permission granted by someone:

  • Vi får lov til å stoppe her.
    “We are allowed to stop here (someone has given us permission).”

In your sentence, får vi lov til å stoppe… makes it explicit that this is something they are permitted to do, not just physically able to do.

Why is the word order På vei hjem får vi lov til å stoppe… and not På vei hjem vi får lov til å stoppe…?

Norwegian main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb (here får) must come in the second position in the sentence.

When you start with something other than the subject (like a time expression), the verb still has to be in position two, and the subject moves after the verb.

• Vi får lov til å stoppe…
  Subject (Vi) first, verb (får) second – normal word order.

• På vei hjem får vi lov til å stoppe…

  1. På vei hjem – fronted adverbial (time/place)
  2. får – finite verb (must be second)
  3. vi – subject

So På vei hjem vi får… is ungrammatical because it violates the V2 rule.

Why is å only written before stoppe, and not before ta as well? Should it be å stoppe og å ta?

When you have several infinitive verbs linked by og (“and”), Norwegian usually writes å only once, before the first verb:

• å stoppe og ta bilder = “to stop and take pictures”

You can say å stoppe og å ta, and it’s not wrong, but it often sounds heavier or more formal. In normal speech and writing, Norwegians prefer:

• å stoppe og ta (one å for both verbs in the series).

What’s the nuance of the preposition ved in ved et utsiktspunkt? Could you use på or til instead?

ved roughly means “by / next to / at (the side of)”. It suggests being near a point or along something:

• ved et utsiktspunkt ≈ “by a viewpoint / at a viewpoint area”.

Alternatives:

• på et utsiktspunkt – “on a viewpoint”; possible in some contexts, but ved is more neutral and common when you’re stopping by a designated viewpoint along a road.
• til et utsiktspunkt – “to a viewpoint”; this focuses on the movement towards the viewpoint (going there), not on being stopped there.

In your sentence, the focus is on where you’re allowed to stop, so ved is natural: you stop by the viewpoint.

What exactly does utsiktspunkt mean, and why is the article et and not en?

utsiktspunkt is a compound noun:

• utsikt = “view” (literally “out‑sight”)
• punkt = “point”

So utsiktspunkt = “viewpoint / lookout point”.

Its grammatical gender is neuter, so:

• Indefinite singular: et utsiktspunkt (“a viewpoint”)
• Definite singular: utsiktspunktet (“the viewpoint”)

You use et because neuter nouns take et as the indefinite article (et hus, et barn, et utsiktspunkt). en is for masculine nouns.

Why is it ta bilder av fjorden with bilder in the plural? Could you say ta et bilde av fjorden?

Both are possible, but they mean slightly different things:

• ta bilder av fjorden = “take pictures of the fjord” (plural)
  → suggests taking several photos.

• ta et bilde av fjorden = “take a picture of the fjord” (singular)
  → one photo.

In everyday speech, if you’re stopping at a viewpoint, it’s natural to expect multiple photos, so Norwegians often use the plural bilder here.

Why is it fjorden (definite form) and not just fjord?

Norwegian uses the definite form when referring to a specific, known thing:

• fjord – “a fjord” (any fjord, in general)
• fjorden – “the fjord” (a particular fjord everyone in the context knows about)

In the sentence, you’re clearly talking about the fjord you see from that viewpoint (maybe it’s named or obvious from context), so fjorden is used.

Pattern:

• en fjord – a fjord
• fjorden – the fjord
• fjorder – fjords
• fjordene – the fjords