Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Vi snakker om hvordan fordommer oppstår, og hvorfor det er uærlig å generalisere. - We talk about how prejudices arise, and why it is dishonest to generalize.

Vi snakker om hvordan fordommer oppstår = We’re talking about how prejudices arise.
You cannot drop om in this meaning.
- ❌ Vi snakker hvordan fordommer oppstår (wrong)
- ✅ Vi snakker om hvordan fordommer oppstår (correct)

Why is it hvordan fordommer oppstår and not hvordan oppstår fordommer?

Because this is not a direct question but an embedded (indirect) question / subordinate clause.

Direct question: Hvordan oppstår fordommer? (How do prejudices arise?)
- In Norwegian main clauses and direct questions, the verb is usually in second position (V2): hvordan – oppstår – fordommer.
Embedded question: … om hvordan fordommer oppstår
- In subordinate clauses, the word order is subject before the verb: fordommer – oppstår.

So:

Direct: Hvordan oppstår fordommer?
Embedded: (om) hvordan fordommer oppstår

What exactly does fordommer mean, and why is it plural?

Fordom = a prejudice / a preconception.
Fordommer = prejudices (indefinite plural).

In this context, Norwegian typically talks about prejudice in general using the plural:

hvordan fordommer oppstår = how prejudices arise / how prejudice arises (general sense).

You could say the singular en fordom if you mean one specific prejudice:

en fordom mot utlendinger = a prejudice against foreigners.

Why is the verb oppstår used instead of something like begynner or starter?

Oppstå means to arise, to come into being, to occur. It focuses on how something comes into existence, often in a more abstract way.

fordommer oppstår = prejudices arise / come into existence.

Begynne / starte mean to begin / to start, often for actions or activities:

Møtet begynner klokka åtte. – The meeting starts at eight.

For the origin of abstract things like conflicts, problems, prejudices, etc., oppstå is more natural.

Why is there a comma before og in …, og hvorfor det er uærlig å generalisere?

Because we have two main clauses joined by og:

Vi snakker om hvordan fordommer oppstår
(Vi snakker om) hvorfor det er uærlig å generalisere

In standard written Norwegian, you normally put a comma between two full main clauses connected by og, men, for, eller, etc., when each has its own subject and verb.

So the comma before og is grammatically correct here. In informal writing, people sometimes skip it, but the sentence as given follows the formal rule.

What is the function of det in hvorfor det er uærlig å generalisere?

Here det is a dummy/anticipatory subject, like “it” in English “It is dishonest to generalize.”

Det er uærlig å generalisere. = It is dishonest to generalize.

Norwegian often uses det this way when the “real” subject is an infinitive clause (å + verb):

Det er vanskelig å forstå. – It is hard to understand.
Det er viktig å lytte. – It is important to listen.

So det doesn’t refer to anything concrete; it just fills the subject position.

Why is it uærlig and not uærlige or uærligt?

Uærlig is an adjective: dishonest. In the pattern Det er + adjective + å + infinitive, Norwegian uses the base/common-gender form of the adjective, without plural or neuter endings:

Det er vanskelig å si. – It is difficult to say.
Det er farlig å kjøre for fort. – It is dangerous to drive too fast.
Det er uærlig å generalisere. – It is dishonest to generalize.

Even though det looks neuter, here it is just a dummy and does not trigger a neuter -t ending, so uærlig stays in its base form.

What does å generalisere look like in different forms (infinitive, present, past)?

Generalisere is a regular -ere verb. Key forms:

Infinitive: å generalisere – to generalize
Present: jeg generaliserer – I generalize / I am generalizing
Past: jeg generaliserte – I generalized
Past participle: har generalisert – have generalized

In the sentence, we have the infinitive:

å generalisere = to generalize

Could the second part be rephrased as Hvorfor å generalisere er uærlig?

You can say Hvorfor å generalisere er uærlig, and it is understandable, but it sounds a bit awkward and is less natural than Hvorfor det er uærlig å generalisere.

Norwegian strongly prefers the “det er + adjective + å + verb” structure for these impersonal statements:

Det er uærlig å generalisere. (natural)
Å generalisere er uærlig. (possible, but less common in many contexts)

So the original sentence uses the most idiomatic pattern.

Where would ikke go if I wanted to say “why it is not dishonest to generalize”?

In a subordinate clause like hvorfor det er uærlig å generalisere, the normal word order is:

subject – (negation/adverbs) – verb

So you would place ikke before the verb er:

… og hvorfor det ikke er uærlig å generalisere.
– … and why it is not dishonest to generalize.

Is snakker here simple present like English “we talk,” or can it also mean “we are talking”?

Norwegian presens (present tense) covers both English simple present and present continuous.

Vi snakker om … can mean:
- We talk about … (habitually / generally), or
- We are talking about … (right now / at the moment).

Context decides which interpretation is most natural.

Why fordommer (plural) and not fordommen or fordommen(e)?

Forms of fordom (prejudice):

en fordom – a prejudice (singular, indefinite)
fordommen – the prejudice (singular, definite)
fordommer – prejudices (plural, indefinite)
fordommene – the prejudices (plural, definite)

Here we use fordommer (indefinite plural) because we’re talking about prejudice in general, as a phenomenon with many possible forms.

So hvordan fordommer oppstår = how prejudices arise / how prejudice arises (in general).

How are uærlig and ærlig pronounced, especially the æ and the final g?

Approximate pronunciation (Bokmål, standard Eastern):

æ is like the a in English “cat”, a short open front vowel.
ærlig: roughly [ˈæːɭi] – the g is silent in ordinary speech.
uærlig: roughly [ʉˈæːɭi].
- u here is a close front rounded vowel, a bit like the French u in “tu” or German ü.

So you do not normally pronounce the final g in (u)ærlig in everyday Norwegian.