Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Datteren min klager over hodepine etter at hun har sett på skjermen for lenge. - My daughter complains about a headache after she has looked at the screen for too long.

datteren min (post‑posed possessive) is:
- slightly more common in everyday speech
- often felt as a bit more neutral or natural in many contexts
min datter (pre‑posed possessive) is:
- a bit more formal or emphatic
- often used when you want to stress my:
  - Det er min datter. = That is *my daughter (not someone else’s).*

So in this sentence, datteren min is just the most natural, neutral choice.

Why is there -en on datteren and also min – isn’t that “double definite”?

Yes, this is double definiteness, which is normal in Norwegian with most possessives placed after the noun.

Structure:

datter = daughter (indefinite)
datteren = the daughter (definite)
datteren min = my daughter

When the possessive comes after the noun (datteren min), you typically:

Put the noun in the definite form (datteren)
Add the possessive pronoun (min)

This combination is standard and correct.
So datteren min literally looks like “the daughter my,” but it means my daughter.

If the possessive comes before the noun (min datter), then the noun is normally indefinite (no -en ending).

Why is it klager over hodepine and not just klager hodepine?

In Norwegian, klage (to complain) normally needs a preposition before what you complain about.

Common patterns:

klage over noe – complain about something
- Hun klager over hodepine. = She complains about a headache.
klage på noe/noen – complain about something/someone / complain to (context‑dependent)
- De klager på maten. = They complain about the food.
- Han klaget på servitøren. = He complained about the waiter.

You cannot say klager hodepine; you must say:

klager over hodepine (complains about a headache)
or rephrase: har hodepine (has a headache)

Could you say har hodepine instead of klager over hodepine?

Yes, but the meaning changes slightly:

Hun har hodepine.
= She has a headache. (Just states the fact.)
Hun klager over hodepine.
= She complains about having a headache. (Focuses on the act of complaining.)

In your sentence, klager over hodepine emphasizes that she is complaining, not just that the headache exists.

Why is hodepine used without an article (why not en hodepine)?

Hodepine (headache) is often treated like an uncountable or mass noun in Norwegian when talking about a symptom in general:

Hun har hodepine. = She has a headache.
Jeg får lett hodepine. = I easily get headaches.

Using en hodepine is possible but more marked and less common in this medical/symptom sense; it tends to feel like one specific instance or is used in figurative meanings:

Det er en stor hodepine. = That is a big headache (a big problem).

So hodepine without en is the normal, idiomatic choice for “a/the headache” as a symptom.

Why is it etter at hun har sett and not just etter hun har sett or etter hun så?

etter at vs etter
- etter at is used before a clause (with subject + verb):
  - etter at hun har sett på skjermen
- etter alone is used before a noun or noun phrase:
  - etter skolen = after school
  - etter filmen = after the movie
So here you need etter at because what follows is a full clause: hun har sett …
har sett vs så
- har sett = present perfect (“has watched/has looked”)
  Often used when the result or relevance is connected to now:
  - She has been looking at the screen, and now she has a headache.
- så = simple past (“watched/saw”)
  More like a detached past event, often in a narrative.
In this sentence, har sett fits well because the screen time is recent and connected to her current headache.
etter at hun så på skjermen is not wrong, but it sounds more like reporting a past event in a story.

Can you say etter å ha sett på skjermen for lenge instead of etter at hun har sett …?

Yes, that is also correct, but the structure changes:

etter at hun har sett på skjermen for lenge
= after she has looked at the screen for too long
(full clause: hun
- har sett)
etter å ha sett på skjermen for lenge
= after having looked at the screen for too long
(infinitive construction: å ha sett with no explicit subject)

Both are grammatical; the first one explicitly mentions hun (she).
The original form with etter at hun har sett is a bit more straightforward for learners because it’s a normal clause.

Why is it har sett på skjermen and not just har sett skjermen?

Norwegian distinguishes between:

se = see
se på = look at / watch

In many contexts where English says watch or look at, Norwegian uses se på:

se på TV = watch TV
se på en film = watch a movie
se på skjermen = look at / watch the screen

se skjermen would usually mean “see the screen” in the sense of perceiving it, not staring at or watching it.
Here, we want “has been looking at the screen,” so har sett på skjermen is correct and idiomatic.

Why is skjermen in the definite form (-en)?

skjerm = screen
skjermen = the screen

We use the definite form when the thing is known or specific from the context:

It’s probably the screen everyone knows about (a computer, tablet, phone, TV screen, etc.).
In English, you also say the screen here:
after she has looked at the screen for too long.

So skjermen is definite for the same reason English uses the.

What does for lenge literally mean, and how is it different from just lenge?

lenge = a long time
for lenge = too long (literally “for long,” but idiomatically “too long”)

Examples:

Hun ser på skjermen lenge.
= She looks at the screen for a long time. (neutral)
Hun ser på skjermen for lenge.
= She looks at the screen for too long. (excessive, too much)

So for here has the meaning of too (as in too much / too long), not the preposition for in English.

Is the word order har sett på skjermen for lenge fixed, or could you move for lenge?

The given order is the most natural:

har sett på skjermen for lenge

You could move it a bit:

har sett for lenge på skjermen

This is still understandable and not ungrammatical, but it sounds a bit less natural and a bit more marked. Native speakers strongly prefer:

verb + object + for lenge at the end in this type of sentence.

So the original word order is the best and most idiomatic choice.

Why is it hun and not henne in etter at hun har sett …?

Norwegian distinguishes between subject and object forms of the pronoun, like English she/her:

hun = she (subject form)
henne = her (object form)

In etter at hun har sett på skjermen, hun is the subject of the verb har sett, so you must use hun, not henne.

Examples:

Hun ser på skjermen. = She looks at the screen.
Jeg ser på henne. = I look at her.

So the sentence correctly uses hun as the subject of the subordinate clause.