Jeg skrur på skrivebordslampen for at notatene skal være lette å lese.

I turn on the desk lamp so that the notes will be easy to read.

Breakdown of Jeg skrur på skrivebordslampen for at notatene skal være lette å lese.

• jeg: I
• være: to be
• å: to
• lese: to read
• skulle: shall
• lett: easy
• skru på: to turn on
• for at: so that
• notatet: the note
• skrivebordslampen: the desk lamp

Questions & Answers about Jeg skrur på skrivebordslampen for at notatene skal være lette å lese.

What does skrur på mean here, and how is it different from other verbs like slår på or setter på?

Å skru på literally comes from å skru (to screw/turn) + på (on), but as a phrase it just means to turn/switch something on.

Common options:

• skru på lampen – turn on the lamp (often something with a knob, dimmer, or rotary switch, but also used quite generally)
• slå på lampen – also very common, and often a bit more general: switch on the lamp
• sette på:
  • sette på kaffen / TV-en / vaskemaskinen – put the coffee on / turn on the TV / start the washing machine
  • less typical for a simple desk lamp, though you might hear it in speech

In your sentence, Jeg skrur på skrivebordslampen is perfectly natural and idiomatic; Jeg slår på skrivebordslampen would also be fine.

Why is the verb split as skrur på? Can I say Jeg skrur skrivebordslampen på instead?

Skru på is a so‑called particle verb: skru (the main verb) + på (the particle).

Default word order with a noun object is:

• Jeg skrur på skrivebordslampen.
  • subject – verb – particle – object

You can say:

• Jeg skrur skrivebordslampen på.

but with a full noun (skrivebordslampen) after the verb, the version with på before the object is more usual and neutral.

However, when the object is a pronoun, the split order is the normal one:

• Jeg skrur den på. (not so natural: Jeg skrur på den.)

So:

• Noun object: prefer skrur på lampen
• Pronoun object: prefer skrur den på

Why is skrivebordslampen written as one long word and not skrivebord lampe?

Norwegian likes compound nouns. When you combine two nouns, you usually write them together as one word:

• skrivebord (desk) + lampe (lamp) → skrivebordslampe (desk lamp)

The -s- in the middle is a common linking sound in compounds.

Writing skrivebord lampe would be incorrect; it must be one word: skrivebordslampe.

In your sentence it is skrivebordslampen with -en at the end, which is the definite singular form:

• en skrivebordslampe – a desk lamp
• skrivebordslampen – the desk lamp

Why is it skrivebordslampen (definite form) and not en skrivebordslampe (indefinite)?

Norwegian uses the definite form whenever we talk about a specific, identifiable object:

• Jeg skrur på skrivebordslampen – I turn on the desk lamp (the one we both know about, probably the one on my desk right now).

If you said:

• Jeg skrur på en skrivebordslampe,

this would sound like I turn on a desk lamp – some unspecified lamp, not necessarily one already known in the context.

In normal everyday contexts like this, you usually mean the lamp that is already present and known, so the definite form skrivebordslampen is natural.

What does for at mean here, and how is it different from just for, fordi, or slik at?

In this sentence, for at is a subordinating conjunction meaning in order that / so that, and it expresses purpose:

• Jeg skrur på skrivebordslampen for at notatene skal være lette å lese.
  → I turn on the desk lamp so that / in order that the notes will be easy to read.

Compare:

• fordi = because (reason/cause)

  • Jeg skrur på lampen fordi det er mørkt.
    I turn on the lamp because it is dark.

• slik at or sånn at = so that, in such a way that (result or purpose, very common in speech)

  • Jeg skrur på lampen slik at notatene er/skal være lette å lese.

Important: when for is used alone, it is normally a preposition (for, for the sake of), not a conjunction. You cannot say:

• ✗ *for notatene skal være lette å lese

You need for at to introduce the clause of purpose.

Why is the word order for at notatene skal være … and not for at skal notatene være …?

Norwegian has a verb‑second rule in main clauses, but not in subordinate clauses.

• Main clause: verb in second position

  • Jeg skrur på lampen.
    (subject – verb – rest)

• Subordinate clause after for at: conjunction first, then subject – verb

  • for at notatene skal være lette å lese
    • conjunction (for at) – subject (notatene) – verb (skal) – rest

So:

• ✔ for at notatene skal være lette å lese
• ✗ *for at skal notatene være lette å lese

In subordinate clauses, the finite verb does not move to second position; it stays after the subject.

Why is it skal være and not just er in for at notatene skal være lette å lese?

Both are actually possible, but there is a nuance:

• skal være:

  • signals a desired or future state: you are doing something so that the notes will be / are going to be easy to read.
  • emphasises intention or goal.

• er:

  • states a present fact or direct result: you turn on the lamp, and then the notes are easy to read.

So:

• for at notatene skal være lette å lese
  → so that the notes will be easy to read (this is the purpose)

• slik at notatene er lette å lese
  → so that the notes are easy to read (more immediate result statement)

In your sentence, skal være nicely matches the idea of purpose: you are acting now for a state you want to achieve.

Why is it notatene and not just notater? And where would I put mine (my)?

Notatene is the definite plural of notat (note):

• (no article) notater – notes (indefinite plural)
• notatene – the notes (definite plural)

The definite form is used because we are talking about a specific set of notes already known in the context (for example, the notes you’re about to read).

To say my notes, you typically use definite plural + possessive pronoun:

• notatene mine – my notes

So for my notes in your sentence, you could say:

• Jeg skrur på skrivebordslampen for at notatene mine skal være lette å lese.

You can also say mine notater, but notatene mine is more common and natural in many contexts.

Why is the adjective lette and not lett in notatene skal være lette å lese?

In Norwegian, adjectives agree with the number (and definiteness) of the noun they describe.

• et notat er lett å lese – one note is easy to read
• notater er lette å lese – notes are easy to read
• notatene er lette å lese – the notes are easy to read

Here, notatene is plural, so the adjective takes the plural ending -e:

• lette (plural form of lett)

So:

• singular: notatet er lett å lese
• plural: notatene er lette å lese

What is the role of å lese in lette å lese? Why do we need å?

Å lese is the infinitive form of the verb lese (to read).

The pattern here is:

• adjective + å + infinitive

This construction means easy/difficult/interesting etc. to do something:

• lett å lese – easy to read
• vanskelig å forstå – difficult to understand
• interessant å høre på – interesting to listen to

The å is required to mark the infinitive.
Without å, the sentence would be ungrammatical:

• ✗ *lette lese – incorrect
• ✔ lette å lese – correct

Can I move the for at‑clause to the front of the sentence?

Yes. You can put the purpose clause first:

• For at notatene skal være lette å lese, skrur jeg på skrivebordslampen.

When you do this, the main clause must still keep the verb in second position, so after the whole for at‑clause, the next element is:

• skrur (verb) – then jeg (subject)

So:

• ✔ For at notatene skal være lette å lese, skrur jeg på skrivebordslampen.
• ✗ *For at notatene skal være lette å lese, jeg skrur på skrivebordslampen. (verb is not in second position here)

Is there a more colloquial way to say skrivebordslampen in spoken Norwegian?

Yes. In many spoken varieties of Bokmål, the definite ending -en is often pronounced and written as -a:

• skrivebordslampen → skrivebordslampa

Both forms are correct in Bokmål, but skrivebordslampen is more standard/formal, while skrivebordslampa feels more colloquial.

So in casual speech you might hear:

• Jeg skrur på skrivebordslampa for at notatene skal være lette å lese.