Det er lurt å ta bilde av originalen før du sender kopien som vedlegg.

It is wise to take a picture of the original before you send the copy as an attachment.

Breakdown of Det er lurt å ta bilde av originalen før du sender kopien som vedlegg.

• være: to be
• du: you
• å: to
• det: it
• før: before
• av: of
• sende: to send
• ta: to take
• som: as
• bildet: the picture
• lur: wise
• vedlegget: the attachment
• kopien: the copy
• originalen: the original

Questions & Answers about Det er lurt å ta bilde av originalen før du sender kopien som vedlegg.

What does “Det er lurt å …” mean, and why do we start with “det”?

“Det er lurt å …” literally means “It is smart/wise to …” and is a very common pattern in Norwegian:

• Det er lurt å + infinitive = It’s smart/wise to …
• Det er viktig å + infinitive = It’s important to …
• Det er vanskelig å + infinitive = It’s difficult to …

Here, “det” is a dummy subject (like “it” in It is important to study). The real action is in the infinitive clause:

• å ta bilde av originalen = to take a picture of the original

So grammatically the structure is:

• Det (dummy subject)
• er (verb “to be”)
• lurt (adjective = smart/wise)
• å ta bilde av originalen (infinitive phrase: what is smart)

Why is it “lurt” and not “lur” in “Det er lurt …”?

“Lur” is an adjective that means clever, smart, wise (and sometimes sneaky).

Norwegian adjectives agree with the noun’s gender/number:

• en lur mann (masculine, indefinite) – a clever man
• ei lur dame (feminine, indefinite) – a clever woman
• et lurt barn (neuter, indefinite) – a clever child
• lure barn (plural) – clever children

In “Det er lurt …”:

• det is grammatically neuter, so the adjective must be in neuter form: lurt.

That’s why you say:

• Det er lurt. – That/It is smart.
• Det er dumt. – That/It is stupid.
• Det er fint. – That/It is nice.

Why is it “å ta bilde av” and not something like “å gjøre et bilde”?

Norwegian uses the verb “å ta” (to take) for photos, just like English (take a picture).

• å ta bilde av noe(noen) = to take a picture of something/someone

So:

• Jeg tar bilde av huset. – I take a picture of the house.
• Hun tok bilde av passet sitt. – She took a picture of her passport.

You do not say gjøre et bilde for “make a picture” in this sense. For photos, it’s always ta (et) bilde or ta (et) foto.

Should it be “ta bilde” or “ta et bilde”? Is leaving out the article correct?

Both are used:

• ta et bilde – literally take a picture
• ta bilde – literally take picture (no article), but very common in everyday speech

In your sentence:

• Det er lurt å ta bilde av originalen …
  This sounds natural and colloquial, especially when the focus is on the action (taking a photo as a step in a process), not on one specific, countable picture.

You could also say:

• Det er lurt å ta et bilde av originalen …

This is also correct and maybe a bit more explicit or slightly more formal, but the meaning is practically the same.

In short:

• Spoken / everyday: ta bilde av … is very common
• Neutral / fully explicit: ta et bilde av …

Why is it “originalen” with -en at the end?

“originalen” is the definite singular form of “original”:

• en original – an original
• originalen – the original

Norwegian usually adds a suffix to mark “the”:

• en kopi → kopien – a copy → the copy
• en original → originalen – an original → the original

In context, we often know which original we’re talking about (for example, the original document, the original form, the original contract). So it’s natural to use the definite:

• … ta bilde av originalen … – take a picture of the original (that specific original document).

Why use “av originalen” and not “på originalen” or something else?

When you photograph something in Norwegian, you normally use “av”:

• å ta bilde av noe/noen – to take a picture of something/someone

Examples:

• Jeg tok et bilde av bilen. – I took a picture of the car.
• Kan du ta et bilde av oss? – Can you take a picture of us?

So “av originalen” simply follows this pattern:

• å ta bilde av originalen – to take a picture of the original

Using “på originalen” would mean something different (like on the original), which is not what you want here.

Why is it “før du sender” in the present tense, even though it’s about a future action?

In Norwegian, it’s very common to use the present tense to talk about the future, especially with time words like i morgen, neste uke, når, før, etter at, hvis:

• Jeg drar i morgen. – I’m leaving tomorrow.
• Når jeg kommer hjem, ringer jeg deg. – When I get home, I’ll call you.

So:

• før du sender kopien
  literally: before you send the copy
  meaning: before you will send / before you are going to send the copy

You don’t need skal sende here. Present tense with “før” is natural and standard.

What is the structure of “før du sender kopien som vedlegg”? Can the word order change?

This is a subordinate clause introduced by “før” (before):

• før (subordinating conjunction)
• du (subject)
• sender (verb)
• kopien (object)
• som vedlegg (predicative phrase: “as an attachment”)

In a subordinate clause, the word order is [subject] + [verb] + …:

• før du sender kopien – before you send the copy
• når jeg kommer hjem – when I come home
• fordi han ikke forstår – because he doesn’t understand

Inside this clause you cannot move the verb in front of the subject:

• ❌ før sender du kopien (wrong)
• ✅ før du sender kopien (correct)

However, you can move the whole clause to the front of the sentence:

• Før du sender kopien som vedlegg, er det lurt å ta bilde av originalen.

This is also perfectly correct and quite natural.

Why “kopien” and not just “kopi”?

As with “originalen”, “kopien” is the definite singular:

• en kopi – a copy
• kopien – the copy

We are talking about that specific copy you’re about to send (for example, the scanned or duplicated document), so the definite form is natural:

• før du sender kopien som vedlegg
  = before you send the copy as an attachment

Using just “kopi” without the -en would sound incomplete here in standard Norwegian.

What does “som vedlegg” mean exactly, and could you say “som et vedlegg” or “i vedlegg” instead?

“som vedlegg” literally means “as attachment” → as an attachment.

• som = as
• vedlegg = attachment (usually in the sense of an email or document attachment)

You have a few options:

1. som vedlegg

   • Very common and natural.
   • … sende kopien som vedlegg. – send the copy as an attachment.

2. som et vedlegg

   • Also correct. Adds an explicit et (an).
   • Slightly more explicit/formal:
     … sende kopien som et vedlegg.

3. i vedlegg / i vedleggene

   • Much less common in this context; sounds odd for email. You don’t usually say “i vedlegg” like in attachment in English.

4. som vedlegg til e-posten

   • More specific: as an attachment to the email.

5. vedlagt (past participle used adverbially)

   • Common in formal writing:
   • Jeg sender kopien vedlagt. – I send the copy attached.

In your sentence, “som vedlegg” is the most natural neutral choice.

Are there other natural ways to say this sentence in Norwegian?

Yes, for example:

• Det er lurt å ta et bilde av originalen før du sender kopien som vedlegg.
  (adds et, a bit more explicit)

• Det er smart å ta bilde av originalen før du sender kopien som vedlegg.
  (smart instead of lurt)

• Det er lurt å ta bilde av originalen før du legger kopien ved e-posten.
  (before you attach the copy to the email)

• Før du sender kopien som vedlegg, er det lurt å ta bilde av originalen.
  (same content, different word order)

All of these sound natural; the original sentence is already idiomatic Norwegian.