Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Sjefen betaler deltakeravgiften hvis temaet på kurset er relevant. - The boss pays the participation fee if the topic of the course is relevant.

Using den sjefen is also possible, but it changes the meaning slightly. It becomes more like that boss or that particular boss, often with some extra emphasis or contrast:

Den sjefen betaler deltakeravgiften, men ikke de andre.
That boss pays the participation fee, but not the others.

In your sentence, we just need Sjefen for a neutral the boss.

What exactly does deltakeravgiften mean, and how is it built?

deltakeravgiften is a compound noun made of:

deltaker = participant
avgift = fee, charge
avgiften = the fee (definite form of avgift)

Put together:

deltakeravgift = participation fee / registration fee
deltakeravgiften = the participation fee

This is very typical in Norwegian: several nouns are joined into one long word, and the definiteness is added only once at the end:

deltakeravgift (a participation fee)
en deltakeravgift (a participation fee)
deltakeravgiften (the participation fee)
deltakeravgifter (participation fees)
deltakeravgiftene (the participation fees)

You cannot write it as two separate words deltaker avgiften; then it would be read as “the fee of the participant” or simply be wrong in this context. The standard meaning “participation fee” is the single compound deltakeravgift.

Why is it betaler deltakeravgiften without a preposition, and not betaler for deltakeravgiften?

In Norwegian, betale (to pay) normally takes a direct object without a preposition:

Sjefen betaler deltakeravgiften.
The boss pays the participation fee.

You can use for in some contexts, but it’s less necessary than for in English:

Han betaler for meg.
He’s paying for me. (i.e., on my behalf)

With a concrete thing like a bill or fee, the “for” is usually left out:

Jeg betaler regningen. (not usually for regningen)
Hun betaler husleia.

So betaler deltakeravgiften is the most natural form here. betaler for deltakeravgiften is not impossible, but it sounds less natural and tends to focus more on the act of covering it than simply stating who pays it.

Why is betaler (present tense) used, instead of something like “will pay”?

Norwegian generally uses the present tense much more broadly than English. A present-tense verb can refer to:

a general fact or rule:
Sjefen betaler deltakeravgiften hvis …
The boss pays the participation fee if … (whenever this condition is met)
the future, when it’s clear from context:
Vi reiser i morgen.
We are leaving tomorrow.

Norwegian does have a future form using skal or kommer til å, but it’s usually used when you are:

talking about a planned / scheduled future action:
Sjefen skal betale deltakeravgiften. (He is going to/shall pay it.)
or about predictions:
Det kommer til å regne. (It is going to rain.)

In your sentence, we’re describing a general rule or policy: whenever the course topic is relevant, the boss pays. Present tense betaler is exactly right for that.

What’s the difference between hvis and om for “if”? Why is hvis used here?

Both hvis and om can be translated as if, but they are not always interchangeable.

hvis is the normal word for if in conditional sentences (if X, then Y):
- Sjefen betaler deltakeravgiften hvis temaet …
- Hvis det regner, blir vi hjemme.
om is often used for if/whether when you’re unsure about something, especially after verbs like spørre, vite, lure på:
- Jeg vet ikke om han kommer.
  I don’t know if/whether he is coming.
- Hun spurte om møtet begynner klokka ni.

In your sentence:

We have a clear condition: if the topic is relevant, (then) the boss pays.
That’s a classic conditional, so hvis is the natural choice.

Using om here would sound dialectal or informal in some varieties, but hvis is the standard and safest option.

Why is it temaet and not temaen for “the topic”?

In Norwegian, nouns have grammatical gender: masculine, feminine, or neuter.
For the definite singular form:

masculine: -en (e.g. sjefen)
feminine: -a (or -en in Bokmål, e.g. jenta / jenten)
neuter: -et (e.g. huset)

tema is a neuter noun, so its definite form is:

et tema = a topic
temaet = the topic

So temaet på kurset literally means the topic of the course.
temaen would be grammatically wrong, because it uses a masculine ending on a neuter noun.

Why is the phrase på kurset used? Could it be i kurset or something else?

The preposition på is very common with events, institutions, and activities. Some typical patterns:

på skolen = at school
på jobb = at work
på kurs / på et kurs = on/at a course
på møtet = at the meeting

So temaet på kurset is literally the topic on/at the course, and idiomatically “the topic of the course”.

Using i kurset is not wrong, but it sounds more like in the course in a structural sense (inside the course content), and is much less common for this simple idea of “the course’s topic”.

If you wanted to emphasise “topic of the course” more technically, you could also say:

temaet for kurset = the topic of the course

All of these can be understood, but på kurset is the most idiomatic everyday way to phrase it.

Is the word order hvis temaet på kurset er relevant fixed, or can it be changed?

Inside a subordinate clause introduced by hvis, the basic word order is:

conjunction – subject – (adverbials) – verb – complement

So:

hvis (conjunction)
temaet (subject)
på kurset (adverbial phrase)
er (verb)
relevant (predicative adjective)

This order is very natural: hvis temaet på kurset er relevant.

You can move på kurset a bit, but you should keep subject and verb together:

hvis temaet er relevant på kurset – possible, but sounds more like “if the topic is relevant in the course context”.

Placing på kurset between er and relevant would be wrong:

✗ hvis temaet er på kurset relevant (ungrammatical in standard Norwegian)

So the given order is the most natural and idiomatic for this meaning.

What happens to the word order if the hvis-clause comes first? Do we need a comma?

Yes, if the subordinate clause (with hvis) comes first, you:

Put a comma after it.
Use V2 word order in the main clause (verb in second position).

Your sentence:

Original: Sjefen betaler deltakeravgiften hvis temaet på kurset er relevant.
With the hvis-clause first:
Hvis temaet på kurset er relevant, betaler sjefen deltakeravgiften.

Explanation:

In main clauses, Norwegian is a V2 language: the finite verb usually comes in the second position.
When the hvis-clause comes first, that whole clause counts as position 1.
Therefore the verb betaler must come before the subject sjefen:
…, betaler sjefen deltakeravgiften. (not ✗ …, sjefen betaler deltakeravgiften.)

Comma rule:

Subordinate clause last: normally no comma
… hvis temaet på kurset er relevant.
Subordinate clause first: comma
Hvis temaet på kurset er relevant, …

Does the adjective relevant need to change form to agree with temaet?

No, not in this position. Here, relevant is a predicative adjective (coming after er and describing the subject). In this use:

The form is usually the same for all genders and numbers:
temaet er relevant
kurset er relevant
boka er relevant

Adjectives show more visible agreement when they stand in front of a noun (attributive position):

et relevant tema (neuter, singular, indefinite: relevant)
en relevant bok (masc/fem, singular, indefinite: relevant)
relevante temaer (plural: relevante)

But after er, blir, var, etc., we just use the base form for standard Bokmål in most cases:

Temaet er relevant.
Bøkene er relevante. (here plural adds -e)

So in your sentence, er relevant is already correct and doesn’t need any extra ending to agree with temaet.

Could we use other words instead of deltakeravgiften, like kursavgiften or deltakergebyret?

Yes, there are a few natural alternatives, each with slightly different emphasis:

kursavgiften
- kurs = course
- kursavgift(en) = the course fee / tuition for the course
- Sjefen betaler kursavgiften hvis temaet på kurset er relevant.
  This focuses on the fee for the course itself.
deltakergebyret
- gebyr(et) = fee, charge (often smaller/admin-like fees)
- deltakergebyret = the participation fee (viewed as a “charge”)
Original: deltakeravgiften
- Very common and neutral for things like workshop/seminar participation fees.

All three can be understood as “the fee for taking part in the course”, but:

kursavgiften = fee for the course (more course-oriented)
deltakeravgiften / deltakergebyret = fee for the participant to take part (more participant-oriented)

In many real-life contexts, people use kursavgift and deltakeravgift almost interchangeably.