Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Etter forrige jobbsamtale innså jeg at jeg burde øve mer, men jeg angrer ikke på at jeg prøvde. - After the last job interview I realized that I should practice more, but I do not regret that I tried.

etter forrige jobbsamtale
not
✗ etter den forrige jobbsamtalen (grammatically possible, but feels heavier/emphatic or contrasts with another one: that previous interview, not the other).

In everyday speech and writing, forrige + noun without article is the natural default.

What exactly is innså? Which verb is it from and what tense is it?

Innså is the past tense of the verb å innse = to realize.

Infinitive: å innse – to realize
Present: innser – realize / realizes
Past (preterite): innså – realized
Past participle: innsett – realized (as in I have realized)

So in the sentence:

innså jeg = I realized (at that time, after the interview)

You could also have said:

Etter forrige jobbsamtale har jeg innsett at …
After the last job interview I have realized that …

That would put more focus on the result being relevant now. But innså is perfectly natural: the realization happened then.

Why is it jeg burde øve mer and not jeg bør øve mer? What’s the difference between bør and burde?

Both come from the verb å burde (should / ought to), but:

bør = present, neutral: what is generally advisable.
burde = past form, but very often used as a “softer”, more hypothetical or self-critical should.

In context:

jeg bør øve mer ≈ I should (really) practice more (a straightforward recommendation).
jeg burde øve mer ≈ I really ought to practice more / I know I should have practiced more.

Here burde adds a nuance of reflection and mild regret about one’s own behavior. It fits well after innså because you’re thinking back on what you (should) do or should have done.

Why don’t we say å øve here? Why is it burde øve and not burde å øve?

In Norwegian, modal verbs (like kan, vil, skal, må, bør/burde) are followed directly by the infinitive without å:

Jeg kan snakke norsk. – I can speak Norwegian.
Hun vil reise. – She wants to travel.
Vi må jobbe mer. – We must work more.
Jeg burde øve mer. – I should practice more.

So:

✗ burde å øve is ungrammatical in standard Bokmål.
✓ burde øve is correct.

Why is it øve mer and not something like øve mye?

mye = much / a lot (amount)
mer = more (comparative of mye)

You use mer when you compare to what you do now:

Jeg øver mye. – I practice a lot.
Jeg burde øve mer. – I should practice more (than I do now).

So in this sentence, the idea is “increase” compared to the current amount → mer is the natural choice.

What is the structure of at jeg burde øve mer? Why is the verb after jeg and not before it?

At introduces a subordinate clause (a dependent clause):

at jeg burde øve mer = that I should practice more

Norwegian word order rules:

In main clauses, the verb is usually in second position (V2):
Jeg innså det. / Da innså jeg det.
In subordinate clauses (introduced by at, fordi, hvis, etc.), the subject comes before the verb:
at jeg burde øve mer (not ✗ at burde jeg øve mer).

So:

Main: Jeg burde øve mer.
Subordinate: at jeg burde øve mer.

Why is the comma before men there? Is it required?

Yes, in standard Norwegian, you normally put a comma before a coordinating conjunction like men when it joins two full clauses:

… innså jeg at jeg burde øve mer, men jeg angrer ikke på at jeg prøvde.

Both sides have their own subject and verb:

Clause 1: jeg innså …
Clause 2: jeg angrer ikke …

So the comma is not optional punctuation style; it’s part of the standard setningskomma (clause-comma) rule.

Why is it jeg angrer ikke på at … and not just jeg angrer at …?

The verb å angre in Norwegian almost always takes the preposition på when you talk about what you regret:

Jeg angrer på det. – I regret it.
Jeg angrer på at jeg sa det. – I regret (the fact) that I said it.

So the pattern is:

angre på + NOUN / at‑clause

Without på, it sounds incomplete or wrong in standard Bokmål:

✗ Jeg angrer at jeg prøvde.
✓ Jeg angrer på at jeg prøvde.

You can drop på only in some set expressions, like jeg angrer ingenting (I don’t regret anything), where there is no explicit object clause.

Why is ikke placed after angrer in jeg angrer ikke på at jeg prøvde?

In a normal main clause, the order is:

Subject
Finite verb
ikke (and other adverbs)
Rest of the sentence

So:

jeg (subject)
angrer (verb)
ikke (negation)
på at jeg prøvde (prepositional phrase/clause)

Other examples:

Jeg liker ikke kaffe. – I don’t like coffee.
Vi kommer ikke i dag. – We’re not coming today.

In subordinate clauses introduced by at, fordi, hvis, etc., ikke typically comes after the subject but before the verb group:

at jeg ikke angrer – that I don’t regret (it)

Why is it jeg angrer ikke på at jeg prøvde and not … at jeg har prøvd? What’s the nuance of prøvde here?

Prøvde is the simple past (preterite) of å prøve (to try).

jeg prøvde = I tried
jeg har prøvd = I have tried

In this sentence, you are talking about one specific event in the past (that interview), so the simple past is natural:

… at jeg prøvde. – … that I tried (then).

Using the present perfect:

… at jeg har prøvd.

would sound more like “I don’t regret the fact that I have tried (at some point, in general)”, and fits less clearly with the single event just mentioned.

So prøvde ties it strongly to forrige jobbsamtale.

Could you say etter at jeg hadde vært på forrige jobbsamtale instead of etter forrige jobbsamtale? How does etter differ from etter at?

Yes, you could say:

Etter at jeg hadde vært på forrige jobbsamtale innså jeg at …

The difference:

etter + noun phrase
Etter forrige jobbsamtale – After the previous job interview
etter at + clause
Etter at jeg hadde vært på forrige jobbsamtale – After I had been to the previous job interview

Both are grammatical. The original is shorter and more natural because the time reference (the interview) is already clear and simple, so you don’t need a whole clause with etter at and past perfect.

What is the difference between jobbsamtale and jobbintervju?

Both can be translated as job interview, but:

jobbintervju = a direct, clear translation of job interview; very common.
jobbsamtale = literally job conversation / job talk; often used to sound a bit softer, more informal, or more like a two‑way conversation than a “grilling”.

In practice, many people use them almost interchangeably. In this sentence, jobbsamtale slightly emphasizes the “conversation” side.

Is there any difference in meaning between jeg angrer ikke på at jeg prøvde and jeg angrer ikke på å ha prøvd?

Both mean you don’t regret having tried, but there’s a nuance:

jeg angrer ikke på at jeg prøvde
– focuses on a specific event in simple past: I don’t regret that I tried (that time).
jeg angrer ikke på å ha prøvd
– is a bit more abstract, like I don’t regret having tried, treating it more as a general action or experience.

In the given context, with a specific interview mentioned, … at jeg prøvde is the most natural and concrete choice.