Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Eksempelet i tabellen gjør regelen lettere å forstå. - The example in the table makes the rule easier to understand.

Here tabellen is a data table / chart / table of values, and Norwegian treats that as something you are inside conceptually, so you normally say:

i tabellen = in the table (of data)

Use i with things like lists, tables, diagrams, texts, and also rooms/containers:

i boka (in the book)
i listen (in the list)
i figuren (in the figure / diagram)

På tabellen would sound more like a physical surface, e.g. something lying on top of a piece of paper that happens to be a printed table. In the sense of a row in the table, a value in the table, you almost always say i tabellen.

What does tabellen mean grammatically?

Tabellen is the definite singular of the noun en tabell (a table / chart).

Indefinite singular: en tabell = a table (of data)
Definite singular: tabellen = the table (of data)

This is a regular masculine noun:

en bil → bilen (a car → the car)
en stol → stolen (a chair → the chair)
en tabell → tabellen (a table → the table)

Why is there no extra word for “the” in Eksempelet i tabellen?

Norwegian usually builds “the” into the noun itself using an ending, instead of a separate word like in English.

So instead of:

the example in the table
you get
eksempelet i tabellen

Both eksempelet and tabellen already contain the definite article:

et eksempel → eksempelet (the example)
en tabell → tabellen (the table)

You don’t add an extra det / den in front in this case.
*Det eksempelet i tabellen would normally be wrong or at least sound strange, unless you are emphasizing that specific example and then you’d say det eksempelet i tabellen der (that example in the table there).

Why is the word order gjør regelen lettere å forstå and not something like gjør regelen å forstå lettere?

The core structure is:

gjøre + object + adjective (or phrase)
= make + object + adjective

So:

gjør (makes)
regelen (the rule) → object
lettere å forstå (easier to understand) → description of the object

This is like English:
makes the rule easier to understand, not makes the rule to understand easier.

The natural Norwegian order is therefore:

Verb (gjør)
Object (regelen)
Object complement (lettere å forstå)

*gjør regelen å forstå lettere is ungrammatical; å forstå depends on lettere, not on gjør, so they must stay together: lettere å forstå.

Why is it regelen and not just regel?

Because we are talking about a specific rule, “the rule,” not just any rule.

Indefinite singular: en regel = a rule
Definite singular: regelen = the rule

So:

gjør regelen lettere å forstå
= makes the rule easier to understand

If you said gjør regel lettere å forstå, it would sound wrong; a singular countable noun in this position almost always needs either:

an article: en regel (a rule), or
the definite form: regelen (the rule)

What exactly is lettere here? Is it a separate word from lett?

Lettere is the comparative form of the adjective lett (easy).

Positive: lett = easy
Comparative: lettere = easier
Superlative: lettest = easiest

So:

lett å forstå = easy to understand
lettere å forstå = easier to understand

You normally don’t say *mer lett for easier; you use the built‑in comparative lettere instead. (There are adjectives that use mer, but lett is not one of them.)

What is å forstå doing at the end, and why do we need å?

Å forstå is the infinitive of the verb forstå (to understand).

å
- verb = English to
  - verb
    - å forstå = to understand
    - å lese = to read
    - å lære = to learn

In the phrase lettere å forstå, the verb forstå depends on lettere:

lettere å forstå = easier to understand

So the full structure is:

gjør regelen (object)
lettere å forstå (adjectival phrase describing that object)

Without å, *lettere forstå would be ungrammatical; infinitives almost always require å unless it’s one of the special cases where å is dropped after certain verbs (like vil, kan, skal, må, bør, får).

Could we say for å forstå instead of å forstå here?

Not in this sentence. For å forstå usually means “in order to understand” and introduces a purpose clause:

Jeg leser boka for å forstå regelen.
= I read the book in order to understand the rule.

In lettere å forstå, å forstå is part of the structure lett(ere) å + infinitive, which expresses how easy/difficult something is:

lett å forstå = easy to understand
vanskelig å forklare = difficult to explain
umulig å gjøre = impossible to do

If you said *lettere for å forstå, it would sound like you are trying to say “easier in order to understand” – which doesn’t make sense. So here it must be lettere å forstå, not for å forstå.

Can I also say Eksempelet i tabellen gjør at regelen er lettere å forstå? Is there a difference?

Yes, that sentence is grammatically correct and natural:

Eksempelet i tabellen gjør at regelen er lettere å forstå.
= The example in the table makes it so that the rule is easier to understand.

Differences:

Original sentence:
- gjør regelen lettere å forstå
- Compact, direct: makes the rule easier to understand.
Alternative sentence:
- gjør at regelen er lettere å forstå
- Literally: makes that the rule is easier to understand, i.e. causes the rule to be easier to understand.

Both are fine; the original is a bit tighter stylistically, while gjør at … explicitly highlights the causal relationship (makes it so that…).