Søknadsbrevet hennes var kort, men CV-en viste tydelig at hun hadde mye å lære og mye å gi.

Both are possible, but they are used a little differently.

• søknadsbrevet hennes = her application letter in the very common Norwegian pattern:
  • definite noun + possessive
  • brevet = the letter
  • hennes = her
• hennes søknadsbrev is also correct, but it often sounds a bit more formal, emphatic, or contrastive.

So Norwegian often prefers:

• boka mi = my book
• huset vårt = our house
• søknadsbrevet hennes = her application letter

This is a very common structure that English speakers usually need time to get used to.

Because søknadsbrev is a neuter noun: et søknadsbrev.

In Norwegian, the definite singular of many neuter nouns is made with -et:

• et brev → brevet = the letter
• et hus → huset = the house
• et søknadsbrev → søknadsbrevet = the application letter

So:

• søknadsbrev = application letter
• søknadsbrevet = the application letter

Then adding hennes gives:

• søknadsbrevet hennes = her application letter

The hyphen is used because CV is an abbreviation.

When Norwegian adds a definite ending to abbreviations, initials, numbers, and some foreign-looking forms, it often uses a hyphen:

• TV-en = the TV
• PC-en = the PC
• CEO-en = the CEO
• CV-en = the CV

So:

• en CV = a CV
• CV-en = the CV

Without the hyphen, it would look awkward and be harder to read.

Because kort is a predicate adjective agreeing with a singular neuter noun.

The subject is:

• søknadsbrevet = the application letter
• brev is neuter: et brev

The adjective kort is the neuter singular form:

• en kort tekst
• et kort brev
• brevet var kort

Compare:

• en kort søknad = a short application
• et kort brev = a short letter
• flere korte brev = several short letters

So var kort is correct because the subject is singular and neuter.

viste is the past tense of å vise = to show.

• viste = showed
• tydelig = clearly

So CV-en viste tydelig at ... means:

• the CV clearly showed that ...

Here tydelig is an adverb modifying viste. It tells us how the CV showed it.

Compare:

• Han snakker tydelig. = He speaks clearly.
• Bildet viste tydelig forskjellen. = The picture showed the difference clearly.

Because the main sentence is in the past:

• var
• viste

So Norwegian often keeps the subordinate clause in a past form too:

• CV-en viste tydelig at hun hadde ...

This is similar to English backshifting:

• The CV showed that she had ...

It places the whole statement in a past-time frame.

That said, in some contexts Norwegian can use present tense after a past-tense verb if the fact is still true or felt as current, but here hadde sounds natural because the sentence is describing how she appeared at that time.

Because after at in a subordinate clause, Norwegian does not use the normal main-clause verb-second pattern.

Main clause:

• Hun hadde mye å lære.

Subordinate clause with at:

• ... at hun hadde mye å lære

So the subject comes before the verb:

• at + subject + verb

This is a very important rule in Norwegian.

Compare:

• Han sa at hun kom. = He said that she came.
• Jeg vet at de bor her. = I know that they live here.

English speakers often notice this because Norwegian main clauses are V2, but subordinate clauses usually are not.

It is a very common Norwegian pattern:

• mye = much / a lot
• å lære = to learn

So mye å lære literally means much to learn, or more naturally in English, a lot to learn.

This pattern works like English:

• Jeg har mye å gjøre. = I have a lot to do.
• Hun har lite å tape. = She has little to lose.
• De hadde mye å snakke om. = They had a lot to talk about.

So here:

• hun hadde mye å lære = she had a lot to learn

Repeating mye makes the two ideas balanced and clear:

• mye å lære
• mye å gi

This creates a neat parallel structure:

• she had a lot to learn
• and a lot to give

If you said mye å lære og gi, it could sound less clear, because gi does not fit as smoothly under the same mye in this context. Repeating mye makes it obvious that both infinitive phrases are separate ideas.

So the repetition is both stylistically natural and semantically clearer.

Because each part is its own infinitive phrase:

• mye å lære
• mye å gi

Each phrase needs its own å.

You can think of it as:

• she had [a lot to learn] and [a lot to give]

So Norwegian repeats the full pattern in both halves.

In Norwegian, å ha mye å gi is a common expression meaning that someone has a lot to contribute, offer, or bring to a role, situation, or relationship.

So here:

• hun hadde mye å lære = she still had a lot to learn
• og mye å gi = and also a lot to contribute

It suggests both inexperience and potential at the same time.

This is a natural and positive phrase in Norwegian.

Yes, basically.

• Søknadsbrevet hennes var kort, men ...
• Her application letter was short, but ...

Here men introduces a contrast:

• the letter itself was short
• but the CV still revealed something important

So men works just like standard English but in this sentence.

No, the subject is needed here.

In the subordinate clause, hun is the subject of hadde:

• at hun hadde mye å lære og mye å gi

Norwegian normally requires an explicit subject in sentences like this, just as English does:

• that she had a lot to learn and a lot to give

So leaving out hun would be ungrammatical.

It has two main parts joined by men:

1. Søknadsbrevet hennes var kort

   • subject: Søknadsbrevet hennes
   • verb: var
   • predicate adjective: kort

2. men CV-en viste tydelig at hun hadde mye å lære og mye å gi

   • men = but
   • subject: CV-en
   • verb: viste
   • adverb: tydelig
   • subordinate clause: at hun hadde mye å lære og mye å gi

So the skeleton is:

• [Main clause] + men + [main clause + subordinate clause]

This is a very normal Norwegian sentence structure.