Translation:The customer wanted to speak with my boss, but that is me.
What does 'jo' add to this sentence? It would make sense to me without it and I would not have thought to add it if going from English to Norwegian.
When translating from English I agree. I would not see any way to include the word 'jo' into English either. From Dutch there would be a similar addition: 'dus'. to the sentence. So that would facilitate a more 'parallel translation' .
It makes perfectly sense without. I usually see "jo" as an argumentative confirmation, someting English lacks. In this sentence, it would best be translated as a "right?", "in fact" or "isn't it?" at the end. Other uses of you: "Du kan ikke svømme!" - "Jo, jeg kan det". Here, I would use "jo" because I am arguing, negating the other statement, but still agreeing with the underlying clause: I can, in fact, swim.
"that is me" - 'det er jo meg'
I know that English ordinarily uses object pronouns for subject complement.
Is this also the case in Norwegian?
(In Swedish it's not.)