Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Uten å ha lest hele artikkelen er det vanskelig å være kritisk på en rettferdig måte. - Without having read the whole article it is difficult to be critical in a fair way.

Uten å ha lest is a perfect infinitive and corresponds to English “without having read”. It emphasizes that the reading is a completed action that should have happened before you can be fairly critical.

Uten å ha lest (hele artikkelen) ≈ without having read (the whole article) → focus on the fact that the action is (not) completed.
Uten å lese (hele artikkelen) would literally mean without reading (the whole article), more like describing an ongoing/general lack of reading, and sounds less natural in this specific context.

So uten å ha lest is the idiomatic choice when you mean “without having read it first.”

What is the function of å in å ha lest and å være kritisk? Why is it repeated?

Å is the Norwegian infinitive marker, roughly like English “to” in “to read” or “to be.”

å ha lest = to have read (infinitive of the perfect tense)
å være = to be

Each infinitive verb (here ha and være) needs its own å. You cannot “reuse” the first å for the second verb. So you must say:

… å ha lest … er det vanskelig å være kritisk …

Leaving out å before være (…er det vanskelig være kritisk…) is ungrammatical in standard Norwegian.

Why is the word order …er det vanskelig… instead of …det er vanskelig…?

Norwegian main clauses follow the V2 rule: the finite verb must be in second position in the clause.

The first element here is the whole fronted phrase:

Uten å ha lest hele artikkelen (1st element)
er (finite verb, 2nd element)
det (subject, 3rd element)
vanskelig å være kritisk på en rettferdig måte (rest of the clause)

So after a fronted element (such as a time, place, or in this case an infinitive phrase), the verb comes next. That’s why we say:

Uten å ha lest hele artikkelen er det vanskelig …
not
✗ Uten å ha lest hele artikkelen det er vanskelig …

What does det refer to in er det vanskelig? Is it a real subject?

Here det is a dummy (expletive) subject, like English “it” in “it is difficult to…”.

The real (logical) subject is the infinitive phrase å være kritisk på en rettferdig måte. Norwegian normally doesn’t place such a long infinitive phrase in front position as the subject, so it uses det in subject position and moves the real subject to the end:

Det er vanskelig å være kritisk på en rettferdig måte.
= It is difficult to be critical in a fair way.

With the fronted “uten”-phrase, we get:

Uten å ha lest hele artikkelen er det vanskelig å være kritisk på en rettferdig måte.

Why is it hele artikkelen and not something like hele artikkel or en hel artikkel?

Artikkelen is the definite form: “the article”, so hele artikkelen = “the whole article.”

artikkel = (an) article
en artikkel = an article (indefinite)
artikkelen = the article (definite)

With hele, you typically put it directly before the definite noun when you mean a specific whole thing:

hele artikkelen – the whole article (this specific one)
hele boka – the whole book

En hel artikkel would mean “a whole article” in a more general sense, not this specific one. Hele artikkel is ungrammatical: you either need en artikkel or artikkelen.

What gender is artikkel, and how does that affect the form artikkelen?

In Bokmål, artikkel is usually treated as masculine:

en artikkel – an article
artikkelen – the article
artikler – articles
artiklene – the articles

If you were using the neuter or feminine form (less common for this word in standard Bokmål), the endings would change, but in practice you will nearly always see en artikkel / artikkelen. The masculine gender is what gives the -en definite ending here.

Why say på en rettferdig måte instead of just rettferdig?

Both are possible in Norwegian, but they are used slightly differently.

på en rettferdig måte = in a fair manner/way → a bit more formal, emphasizes the manner of being critical.
rettferdig can also act as an adverb after some verbs:
- å dømme rettferdig – to judge fairly
- å oppføre seg rettferdig – to behave fairly

In this exact sentence, å være kritisk på en rettferdig måte sounds more natural and clear than something like å være rettferdig kritisk, which is possible but stylistically heavier and a bit less common. The chosen phrase mirrors the English “in a fair way.”

Why does rettferdig not change form in en rettferdig måte?

Adjectives ending in -ig (and -lig) often have the same form in masculine/feminine and neuter singular in Bokmål:

rettferdig (m/f singular)
rettferdig (neuter singular)
rettferdige (plural / definite)

So in en rettferdig måte, rettferdig is the regular masculine/feminine singular form agreeing with en måte (a way). It doesn’t take an extra ending like some adjectives do (e.g. en stor bil, et stort hus, store biler).

Who is actually doing the reading in uten å ha lest hele artikkelen? There is no subject shown.

The subject of å ha lest is understood; it is controlled by the subject of the main clause. Logically, the sentence means:

(Hvis man) ikke har lest hele artikkelen, er det vanskelig å være kritisk på en rettferdig måte.

So the implied subject is like man, du, or vi, depending on context. Norwegian often omits the subject in infinitive clauses like uten å ha lest… when it’s clear from the main clause who is meant.

What is the difference between å være kritisk and å kritisere here?

å være kritisk = to be critical, to adopt a critical/skeptical attitude. It’s about your stance or mindset.
å kritisere = to criticize, i.e. to actively express criticism about something.

In this sentence, the focus is on having a critical attitude in a fair way, not necessarily on actually voicing criticism. That’s why å være kritisk is preferred over å kritisere here.

Could I say Uten at man har lest hele artikkelen… instead of Uten å ha lest hele artikkelen…? What’s the difference?

Yes, you can say:

Uten at man har lest hele artikkelen, er det vanskelig å være kritisk på en rettferdig måte.

Uten å ha lest uses an infinitive construction (without + having done X).
Uten at man har lest uses a finite subordinate clause (without that one has done X).

Meaning-wise they are almost the same.

uten å ha + past participle is a bit more compact and common in written language.
uten at man har lest is a bit more explicit and can feel slightly more conversational or explanatory.

Could I say å ha lest artikkelen helt instead of hele artikkelen?

Artikkelen helt is possible in some contexts, but it changes the nuance and isn’t the natural choice here.

hele artikkelen = the whole article, focusing on the entire object.
artikkelen helt (ferdig) would sound more like the article completely (finished), focusing on the completeness of the action, and would almost need something like ferdig:
- Jeg har lest artikkelen helt ferdig. – I’ve read the article completely/through to the end.

In this sentence, what matters is that you have covered the entire article, so hele artikkelen is the idiomatic and simplest way to say it.