Leif Henriksen Dec 24, 2014:

This, along with you other questions of the day, seems to come from a simple transcription of a very verbal conversation with mr. Gleditsch where his tongue runs away while the thoughts are being constructed. Unless refelecting this as such has a special value here, I would tranlate the bigger picture, the meaning of the statements rahter than the separate words of the statement. In this case, that would mean something like "You should remember that [in those times] [at that time] this was even deductible, meaning that if you could substansiate having paid a bribe, it was deductible".

Erik Wallace Dec 24, 2014:

I would interpret it as ... "En må jo huske på det at den gangen så var til og med fradragsberettiget." if I were you.

stephen mewes (asker) Dec 24, 2014:

The whole paragraph Jeg kaller det ikke korrupsjon når vi betaler en toller 50 dollar for å flytte dokumentene litt oppover i, oppover i bunken for å få råvarene litt fortere ut av hava og sånn. Den type, det kaller ikke jeg, det har vi deltatt i. En må jo huske på det at den gangen så var til og med. Det var jo fradragsberettiget. Altså hvis du kunne dokumentere at du hadde betalt bestikkelser så var det fradragsberettiget.

Erik Wallace Dec 24, 2014:

Incomplete sentence The last sentence doesn't make any sense at all. That being said, the first is no linguistic masterpiece either.

Perhaps you could paste the sentence before and after this as well? It might help.