Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Etterpå løste vi konflikten og krangelen med en rolig forklaring. - Afterwards we solved the conflict and the argument with a calm explanation.

The finite verb must be in second position in the sentence.
Whatever comes first (subject, adverb, object, etc.), the verb still has to be second.

Here, Etterpå (Afterwards) is an adverb placed first, so the verb comes next, and the subject comes third:

Etterpå løste vi konflikten …
(Adverb – Verb – Subject)

If you start with the subject instead, you get:

Vi løste konflikten etterpå.
(Subject – Verb – … – Adverb)

Both are correct; the word order just changes what is being emphasized. The sentence in your example emphasizes “afterwards”.

What’s the difference between “etterpå”, “etter”, and “senere/deretter”?

All are time-related, but they’re used differently:

etterpå = afterwards, later on
– Stands alone as an adverb.
– Typical in everyday speech.
- Vi spiste, og etterpå gikk vi hjem.
etter = after (a preposition or subordinating conjunction)
– Needs something after it.
- etter skolen = after school
- etter at vi spiste = after we ate
senere = later (more neutral/formal than etterpå)
- Vi kan snakke senere. = We can talk later.
deretter = then / thereafter (more formal, often written)
- Vi diskuterte saken, og deretter stemte vi.

In your sentence, “Etterpå” sounds natural and conversational.

What does the verb “løste” come from, and how is it different from “løste opp”?

Løste is the past tense of løse:

løse = to solve, to resolve
løste = solved / resolved (past tense)
har løst = have solved (past participle)

So løste vi konflikten = we resolved the conflict.

løse opp literally means to loosen up or dissolve, and metaphorically to ease or defuse:

Vi løste opp stemningen. = We lightened/relaxed the mood.
Saltet løste seg opp i vann. = The salt dissolved in the water.

In your sentence, “løste” (without opp) is the normal verb to use about resolving a conflict.

Why are “konflikten” and “krangelen” in the definite form?

Norwegian usually uses the definite form when both speaker and listener know which specific thing is being referred to.

konflikt = a conflict
konflikten = the conflict
krangel = an argument / quarrel
krangelen = the argument / the quarrel

So:

… løste vi konflikten og krangelen …
= … we resolved *the conflict and the argument …*
(referring to specific ones you both already know about, probably mentioned earlier in the conversation or context)

If you used the indefinite forms (en konflikt, en krangel), it would sound more like you’re talking about some non-specific conflict/argument in general, which would be odd here.

Is it necessary to repeat the definite ending in “konflikten og krangelen”? Could I say something like “konflikten og krangel”?

You must mark definiteness on each noun:

✅ konflikten og krangelen = the conflict and the argument
❌ konflikten og krangel = ungrammatical

In Norwegian you don’t “share” the definite form across coordinated nouns the way English can sometimes use “the conflict and argument”. Each noun that is definite must carry the definite ending:

boka og filmen = the book and the movie
huset og bilen = the house and the car

Why use both “konflikten” and “krangelen”? Aren’t they almost the same thing?

They are related but not identical in nuance:

konflikt = conflict
– Broader, can be more formal or long‑term: interpersonal conflict, workplace conflict, political conflict.
krangel = argument, quarrel, fight (verbal)
– More concrete, everyday; a specific episode of arguing.

“konflikten og krangelen” can suggest both:

the underlying conflict (ongoing tension, disagreement), and
the actual argument/fight that happened.

It can also be a stylistic way to emphasize that both the situation and the specific argument were resolved. In real-life usage, speakers might also simply choose one of them:

Vi løste konflikten.
Vi løste krangelen.

Why is it “en rolig forklaring” and not “ei rolig forklaring”?

Forklaring is a noun that can be masculine or feminine in Bokmål:

forklaring (m/f)

In standard/written Bokmål, many feminine nouns are often treated as masculine in everyday use:

en forklaring (very common, neutral standard)
ei forklaring (possible in Bokmål, but marked as feminine; more common in dialectal speech and Nynorsk)

So “en rolig forklaring” is completely natural and standard.
If someone said “ei rolig forklaring”, it would sound more dialectal/regional but still understandable.

Why is “forklaring” indefinite (“en rolig forklaring”) while “konflikten/krangelen” are definite?

Because they play different roles:

konflikten og krangelen refer to a specific, known conflict and argument → definite.
en rolig forklaring is one such explanation, not previously known or specified → indefinite.

It’s like saying:

“We resolved the conflict and the argument with a calm explanation.”

If you said “med den rolige forklaringen”, it would sound like a specific, previously identified explanation (e.g., one you had already talked about), which doesn’t fit normal context here.

What does “rolig” really mean here? Is it “calm”, “quiet”, or something else?

Rolig mainly means:

calm, peaceful, not agitated

In this context, “en rolig forklaring” means:

a calm, patient, non-aggressive explanation
(spoken in a relaxed, non‑emotional way)

It does not mean “quiet” in the sense of low volume; that would more typically be “lavmælt”, “stille”, etc.

Other common uses of rolig:

Ta det rolig. = Take it easy / relax.
Han er en rolig person. = He is a calm person.

Why is the preposition “med” used in “med en rolig forklaring”? Could I also use “ved” or “gjennom”?

Here, med expresses means/instrument: by means of / using.

Vi løste konflikten … med en rolig forklaring.
= We resolved the conflict by giving a calm explanation.

Alternatives:

ved en rolig forklaring
– Possible but sounds more formal or a bit stiff in everyday speech.
– More typical in written/academic language, often in patterns like “ved å …” (by doing …).
gjennom en rolig forklaring
– Also possible, roughly through a calm explanation.
– Slightly more process-oriented and formal; often used about processes and methods.

In neutral, everyday speech, med is the most natural choice here.

Could I move “med en rolig forklaring” to the front, like: “Med en rolig forklaring løste vi konflikten …”? Does that change the meaning?

Yes, you can, and the grammar still follows the V2 rule:

Med en rolig forklaring løste vi konflikten og krangelen.
(Prepositional phrase – Verb – Subject – …)

The basic meaning is the same, but the focus shifts a bit:

Etterpå løste vi … med en rolig forklaring.
→ Emphasizes when it happened (afterwards).
Med en rolig forklaring løste vi …
→ Emphasizes how / by which means it was resolved (with a calm explanation).

Both are natural; the choice depends on what you want to foreground.

How is “etterpå løste vi” pronounced, especially “ø” in “løste”?

Approximate pronunciation (standard Eastern Norwegian):

etterpå → [ˈɛtːərpɔː]
– tt is a long t.
– Final på has a long å sound, similar to the vowel in British “law” but more rounded.
løste → [ˈløːstə]
– ø is a rounded front vowel, between English “e” in “bed” and “u” in French “bleu”.
– Think of saying “eh” while rounding your lips.
– ø here is long: [løː].
– Final e is a short, reduced sound [ə], like the a in “sofa”.

Phrase-level:

Etterpå løste vi konflikten og krangelen …
is spoken fairly smoothly, with the main stress on:
- Étterpå, LØØste, konFLIKten, KRANgelen.

How is the past tense “løste” formed from “løse”? Is there a general pattern?

Yes. Løse is a regular weak verb in Bokmål.

Pattern (one common type):

infinitive: løse
present: løser
preterite (past): løste
past participle: løst

Same pattern with many verbs ending in -se/-te in the past:

lese – leser – leste – lest (to read)
reise – reiser – reiste – reist (to travel)
vise – viser – viste – vist (to show)

So knowing one verb of this pattern helps you recognize others.